Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Further Education

Clive Efford: If she will make a statement on her plans to widen participation in further education.

John Healey: Further education is central to the provision of high-quality academic and vocational opportunities for learning. FE colleges make a great contribution to raising skill levels, improving basic skills, boosting employability and widening access to learning. More than 4 million people learn via FE each year. The Learning and Skills Council is examining the potential for FE to deliver further growth in adult participation.

Clive Efford: I thank my hon. Friend and take this opportunity to welcome him to the Dispatch Box, the first opportunity I have had to do so.
	My hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern in FE colleges about the comments of Mr. John Harwood on the BBC's "Today" programme last week. Does he agree that if we are to deliver on our targets for participation in further education, Mr. Harwood will need the co-operation of people in further education colleges? Does he accept that his statement conflicts with the findings of the chief inspector of the Further Education Funding Council, who found that, in 1999-2000, 93 per cent. of colleges were satisfactory or above? Does he agree that if we are going to deliver on our programme to improve education, we do not need to repeat in the FE sector the mistakes that were made in Ofsted, where officers made inflammatory and unfounded statements through the media?

John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The range of people who learn through FE and the range of courses that they can follow is second to none anywhere in the education system. I have seen some excellent provision. Co-operation will be the key, but we cannot get away from the fact that the variation in quality and performance between courses and colleges is too wide. That is why we place so much importance on the standards fund, which we have doubled this year, the new inspection regime, and the Learning and Skills Council working with FE colleges to raise standards.

Tim Boswell: I too genuinely welcome the Minister to his new post. Does he not recognise that further education colleges feel extremely battered—a combination perhaps of financial pressures, curriculum pressures on staff and worries about falling student numbers? Given the perhaps compressed reports by the chief inspectors following their initial inspections, and the remarks of Mr. John Harwood, which may have been distorted in transit, will the Minister take this opportunity to affirm clearly that the great majority of further education provision is satisfactory or indeed positively good, and provides a foundation on which improvements can be made?

John Healey: The majority of provision is good, but we want it to be better. I understand the pressure that is felt in the sector, but the sort of resources for which the sector has been crying out for years are starting to go into FE. A total of £527 million extra via the LSC has been earmarked for FE this year. A real-terms increase of 3 per cent. is due next year. The hon. Gentleman has been a strong champion of the FE sector. He may regard those resources as overdue, but he cannot deny that they are going in.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I welcome my hon. Friend to his position and endorse what has been said about raising the morale of staff whom we expect to deliver higher quality for all people who use further education, but does he agree about the importance of the education maintenance grant in widening access? It is pivotal to getting people from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education. I welcome the long-overdue review of student finance, but if there is money around, please let us not forget further education, an important part of the equation in expanding education post-16.

John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments about the education maintenance grant. We are looking carefully at the impact that it has had in the pilot areas. As part of the new spending review, we are reviewing funding and support for adult learners across the board. What is certainly true—it is a point powerfully made—is that achieving our ambition for students in higher education by the end of the decade turns centrally on the ability of further education to play a part.

Alistair Burt: I too welcome the Minister to his position. We share his aspirations for a vibrant and high-quality further education sector. He will be aware that individual learning accounts were used by further education colleges markedly to widen participation in learning. How does he think yesterday's announcement of the sudden closure of the scheme will affect those aspirations? How long has he known of the problem of fraud and abuse? Is it true that 5,200 complaints were received before any action was taken? How much money is involved? How many people have been affected? What form will an inquiry take? All things considered, does he not think that he should be here making a statement?

John Healey: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Front Bench and look forward to debating with him. He is right to say that individual learning accounts have been widely used by further education colleges, which are among the 1,600 public sector learning providers registered under the ILA scheme, out of a total of 8,500. The scheme exceeded our expectations and expanded beyond its capacity. We hit the target of 1 million ILA accounts one year early. The scheme has helped many individuals to take up new learning, including through further education. However, it recently became clear that the scheme was open to exploitation. Despite the changes that we made to its administration, the problem was not stamped out. We have not taken this step lightly, but my right hon. Friend and I have decided to suspend the operation of the scheme. We feel that it is the right thing to do because it affords protection for individual learners who were paying for their learning through individual learning accounts, as well as protecting public finances.

Educational Standards

Tony Colman: By what means her Department will ensure that educational standards are maintained when the private sector is involved in school management.

Estelle Morris: Lines of accountability will not change. Local authorities, school governors and head teachers will retain their current responsibilities for school improvement, and Ofsted will continue to inspect. External partners will be subject to an agreement setting clear and demanding performance targets.

Tony Colman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm again that local education authorities that perform well will continue to be responsible for ensuring school improvement and holding schools accountable?

Estelle Morris: Yes, absolutely. I am happy to go further than that and say to my hon. Friend that our best local authorities are needed to support our weaker local authorities. I take the pragmatic view that the education of children is too important to waste and we must use whatever source from whatever sector, as long as it is good quality, to raise standards in our schools. Yesterday I was in Leeds, where an external partner is helping to raise standards. Next week I am going to celebrate the connection between Warwickshire and Doncaster. Warwickshire, which is very strong, has helped Doncaster, which is less strong. In both cases, the Ofsted report shows that progress is being made.

Damian Green: I assure the Secretary of State at the outset of our exchanges that when the Government genuinely promote excellence, discipline and diversity in schools she will receive support from the Opposition, and when they do not we shall want to know why. In that regard, can she clear up the contradictory messages that she sends about using the private sector to drive up standards in some schools? Her White Paper has warm words about this, but her article this month in The Parliamentary Monitor, which presumably is meant to be read by many of her right hon. and hon. Friends, is much less keen on the private sector. Can she tell the House whether she regards the private sector as a last resort, or will she allow it to play a widespread positive role in enhancing standards?

Estelle Morris: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate his whole team, in case I do not get the chance to do so later.
	We are quite clear that the private sector is not a last resort, but there will be cases when all else has failed and we look to private sector expertise to help us raise standards in schools. For many years now, I have invited good schools and local authorities voluntarily to seek partnership with the private sector if they think that it is in their interests. There may be cases where individual schools and local authorities seek to do so as a last resort, but in those instances we may call in another public sector partner.
	I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Opposition's willingness to use the private sector. I remind him and his party that this Government freed up the law to enable schools to use whatever sources they need to raise standards. In 18 years, the Conservatives made no move in that direction. We are guided by very simple principles: what works for children is what we want in our schools. However, there is a clear line of public accountability for the expenditure of public money. Whether we spend that money in the private sector or the public sector, the Government will hold to those clear lines of public accountability.

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady has not entirely cleared up the contradiction. She said that the private sector was not a last resort and then in the next sentence said that it could be used when all else had failed, which sounds to me like the last resort. So we have to explore that contradiction further. If the right hon. Lady is as keen as the last part of her answer suggested, can she explain why, consistently throughout the Government's term of office, Labour local education authorities have blocked the use of this option for improving schools? Indeed, the only place where it has been fully utilised is Conservative Surrey. Does she not agree with me that at a time of teacher shortages, a crisis in school discipline and falling standards in maths among 11-year-olds, a sensible Government would force their party to take any opportunity to help schools in difficulty and not reject one option because of an old-fashioned ideology that still lives on in the Labour party?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman will do better in his post if he learns to read and listen. I clearly put it on record that the private sector can be used as a last resort, but it will not always be used as a last resort. That is as clear as it gets, and if the hon. Gentleman does not understand that answer I fear for the leadership of the Conservative education team.
	Let me take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the performance in maths among 11-year-olds, which is a real success story. I pay tribute to the teachers and classroom assistants and all those who have worked in our schools to bring that about. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to take an approach that damns teachers when they do well and that fails to acknowledge achievement and progress. I am incredibly proud of our key stage 2 results and I wish that the hon. Gentleman were too.
	It is quite clear that we will use whatever we can to raise standards. The Government have actively promoted partnerships between schools and local authorities. We have learned from local authorities that get it right. In developing our policy in Whitehall, we listened to what happened in Guildford, Liverpool and elsewhere. I will never apologise for that—for the Government learning from what local authorities and schools do well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to make an appeal. I am trying to get down the Order Paper, so short, sharp questions and answers would be very much appreciated.

Adam Price: On privatisation, the National Assembly for Wales said in its recent White Paper that it saw real risks in a shift to what it described as
	"untested measures delivered . . . through the private sector."
	Does the Secretary of State agree?

Estelle Morris: All I say to that is, "Long live diversity."

Postgraduate Students

Brian White: What support her Department gives to postgraduate students.

Estelle Morris: My Department provides financial support for postgraduates through research councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board, bursaries for PGCE teacher training students and awards for disabled postgraduate students.

Brian White: During the recess I spoke to a number of my constituents who are doing postgraduate research at Cranfield or through the Open university. Apart from commercial sponsorship of the sexy subjects, they consider that there is a real problem in respect of bread and butter research. Postgraduates cannot get access to student loan schemes and, although they are on low wages, they cannot get access to passported benefits. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that her Department will examine and review these issues?

Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Postgraduate research is immensely important. There has been a 13 per cent. increase in the number of full and part-time students studying at that level and we have increased the funding that is available. By 2003 the grant will be some £9,000, which is a sizeable increase. I take my hon. Friend's comments seriously. It is a matter that my Department will continue to monitor and we will make sure that we take whatever action is appropriate at the appropriate time.

David Cameron: In terms of postgraduates, will the right hon. Lady explain why the Under-Secretary with responsibility for adult skills has written to all hon. Members about individual learning accounts to explain why the Government have closed down this scheme? The letter seems incredibly unfrank and lacking in any candour. It talks about closing the scheme because it
	"has exceeded the Government's expectations in encouraging very large numbers of people to take new interest in learning"
	but it makes no mention of fraud or of the fact that the police are investigating 279 providers. May we have a bit of frankness and candour rather than spin?

Estelle Morris: I think that we have been exceptionally candid about this. In the Education and Skills Select Committee yesterday, I made it clear that there were two reasons why we were withdrawing the scheme. First, it had exceeded its capacity early, with 2.5 million people benefiting from ILAs who might not otherwise have done so. Secondly, as I said in a parliamentary answer yesterday and as my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), made clear today, we have received complaints and we are not entirely happy that all the money that has been paid out has gone to top-quality schemes. It is entirely responsible to act as we have done: to give those who have ILAs four to six weeks to draw them down, and then to withdraw the scheme, making it absolutely clear that our commitment to good-quality adult education is cast iron and that we will introduce a further scheme.

PFI Contracts (Capital Return)

Jeremy Corbyn: What her estimate is of the rate of return of capital in schools funded wholly or partly by PFI contracts.

John Healey: I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that he received on 16 October, at column 1182W. The rate of return to a private sector contractor in a schools PFI contract is fixed as part of the annual payment made by a local education authority for delivery of the services specified in the contract, and as such is a matter between the local education authority and its private sector partner. All PFI contracts in schools have to demonstrate better value for money than public sector traditional procurement.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Minister accept that the traditional form of public sector funding of capital development in education is both cheaper and more accountable than PFIs? The evidence collected by the Treasury Committee on health PFIs, for example, shows that in many of them there is up to an 18 per cent. return on capital. Nothing like that rate of return has ever been paid by traditional funding methods in the public sector. Is not it better for education to fund new developments directly through taxation, rather than bringing in the private sector to make money out of it?

John Healey: No, I do not accept that private sector financing has no part to play. I remind my hon. Friend that PFI contracts can proceed only if the value for money is better than that of public procurement comparators. Payments to private sector contractors must be linked to levels of service. That brings benefits to the public sector in terms of new buildings and guaranteed high levels of maintenance.
	You would not expect me to answer about the health service, Mr. Speaker, but we have no evidence of profiteering in the education sector. If my hon. Friend has, I would like to see it.

Crispin Blunt: I support the gist of the Minister's answer, but I invite him to go slightly further and explain that the value of PFI contracts comes from the private sector not only building the capital assets but running them. Surrey county council has done that for schools in Surrey. Why do the Government need legislation to force Labour authorities to go down the same road?

John Healey: Nobody needs legislation to encourage authorities, under whatever political leadership, to apply for PFI schemes: 90 out of 150 local education authorities have shown an interest in applying. Part of the benefit is that the risk over the long term of the contract period is transferred to the private sector. There are also benefits in freeing up head teachers from having to manage buildings and allowing them to concentrate on the curriculum. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in one PFI contract the contractor's pay is directly linked to exam results.

Class Sizes

Julian Lewis: What assessment she has made of the relationship between class size and examination results.

Stephen Timms: My Department and local education authorities have jointly commissioned the university of London's Institute of Education to research the effect of smaller class sizes. The preliminary findings suggest that smaller classes, particularly reception classes, are indeed beneficial.

Julian Lewis: That research, if accurate, contradicts the findings of other recent research, which suggests that there is little significant correlation between class sizes and academic performance, and examination results in particular. Given that there is such a contradiction, why will not the Government take up the eminently practical suggestion, made time and again, that when league tables are published showing examination results, the class sizes should be shown alongside, so that people can assess whether there is a correlation?

Stephen Timms: The evidence is that, in reception classes in particular, smaller class sizes are very beneficial. That of course is why we have focused our work in this area on infant classes. The average infant class size is now 25.2, compared with nearly 27 in 1997. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the fall in infant class sizes has been significant, from 27.5 to 25.4. I hope that he will welcome that progress and the resulting improvements. Of course there are many other factors at play, but the evidence to which I have referred shows pretty clearly that the progress we have been able to make in reducing class sizes has made an important contribution to raising standards in those infant classes.
	Junior class sizes are also falling, and secondary class sizes have fallen for the first time in 10 years. All those improvements have made an important contribution to the dramatic rise in standards that this Government have brought about.

Charlotte Atkins: Are the real improvements in standards in key stages 2 and 1 down to reduced class sizes for five, six and seven- year-olds or to the increased number of classroom assistants being employed and the massive investment in early years education? I believe that in 2004 all three-year-olds will have access to a free nursery place.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to those great improvements as further important factors in bringing about the dramatic improvement to which she referred. Let us acknowledge, too, the great importance of the numeracy and literacy strategies delivered so successfully by teachers over the past four years, which have also had a decisive beneficial effect.

Phil Willis: The Minister will be interested in the new Tory policy of larger class sizes. That is one for the House to note. Does he accept that, irrespective of class sizes, what drives up standards is good-quality teachers? Will he comment on the fact that his Department has spent £9.2 million on recruiting 111 fast-track teachers, and assure the House that every one of them will go into so-called failing schools so that they can reap the benefit? Given the Secretary of State's comments earlier, does he feel that the £83,000 per teacher given to the private sector to recruit those teachers represents good value for money for the taxpayer?

Stephen Timms: The Conservative policy is not a new one: class sizes were rising for many years under the previous Government.
	It is true that the quality of teaching is vital to raising standards. The fact that teaching quality has improved is undoubtedly a major part of the explanation for the dramatic improvements in standards. Fast-track teachers will indeed spend some of their time in schools facing challenging circumstances. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the benefits of the energetic approach that we are taking to bring new and able people into the teaching profession, increasing the number of teachers, because we need more able teachers to be able to maintain the pace of improvement that we have achieved.

Paddy Tipping: Considerable progress has been made at key stage 1 in reducing class sizes and improving standards, but does the Minister share my concerns about the large class sizes, sometimes approaching 40, not only in Nottinghamshire but throughout the country at key stage 2? Should not our priority now be to get those class sizes down?

Stephen Timms: We have of course made progress at other key stages, too. Junior class sizes have now fallen for two consecutive years, and we have allocated more than £36 million this year to schools that increased their intake to help meet the infant class size limit and ensure that infants transferring to junior classes continue to benefit from smaller classes. That will certainly help, but it is important that we keep the matter under review and maintain the pace of progress that we have seen in recent years, so that we can continue the dramatic improvement in standards in junior classes.

Graham Brady: In spite of a fall in numeracy levels at age 11 this year, in a written answer the Minister confirmed the targets of 75 per cent. for next year and proposed increased targets of 85 per cent. for literacy and numeracy by 2004. He said:
	"We are confident that these challenging targets can be achieved."—[Official Report, 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1187W.]
	If the Government are so confident, why was the Secretary of State backsliding yesterday by telling the Education and Skills Select Committee that it will not matter if targets are missed, and why are she and her Ministers afraid to put their jobs on the line as her predecessor would?

Stephen Timms: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, but I hope that in his future contributions to our debates he will want to celebrate the dramatic improvements in key stage 2 results in our junior schools in numeracy and literacy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reaffirmed our commitment yesterday to the targets that have been set and it is important that the hon. Gentleman and others contribute to a celebration of the great progress that has been made.

Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that smaller class sizes enable teachers to give more individual attention to individual pupils? Does he also agree that if more diagnostic testing was done in the early years to identify the weaknesses that children experience and the help that they need, later results would be better?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. The evidence that the Institute of Education has provided supports the benefits of smaller class sizes in the early years. The work of the early years partnerships is also helping to identify problems early in a child's school life so that appropriate support can be provided. He is right to say that that is important.

A-level Results

Adrian Bailey: If she will make a statement on this year's A-level results.

Ivan Lewis: The A-level results published on 16 August 2001 are provisional. A copy of those provisional results has been placed in the Library and final figures for this year's results will be published in November.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My local authority of Sandwell saw a further improvement in A-level results this year, but I was concerned by some of the public comments about a dilution of standards. Will my hon. Friend confirm that no such dilution has taken place, and does he agree that such ill-informed comments are grossly demoralising and insulting to the thousands of hard-working pupils and teachers throughout the country?

Ivan Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is about time that we started to celebrate the achievements of our young people and pay tribute to the support of the teachers, governors and parents in our education institutions. A-level results this year demonstrated that pass rates for grades A to E were up by 0.7 per cent., and A to C pass rates increased by 1.1 per cent. on last year. Some of the comments made have been investigated objectively and found to be absolute nonsense. The basis of the suggestions that standards have been undermined are flawed. When our young people do well, we should be positive, support them and draw attention to their achievements, not talk them down and make them feel that they are in a no-win situation. The Government are proud of having raised standards in all areas of education, and we continue to subscribe to that commitment.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister share his knowledge of the A-level results in non-selective and selective schools and compare that with the evidence of the National Federation for Educational Research report, published last week, which—taking social class and other factors into account—showed how well pupils in selective schools were doing at A-level? Will he welcome the fact that the Government's attempts to allow selective schools to be driven out of the system seem to have ground to a halt?

Ivan Lewis: The Government would expect children selected at 11 to perform well, but we want to pay tribute to the achievement of all children in all schools.

Caroline Flint: I welcome and celebrate good A-level results, but will my hon. Friend comment on this country's continuing obsessive belief that A-levels and GCSEs are the only worthy qualifications for young people to have? We need to consider vocational qualifications, which would be more motivating for many young people, instead of the GCSEs and A-levels for which they get poor grades.

Ivan Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. One of the Government's challenges is to create parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications. We start from a low base, but we will review the entire 14 to 19-year-old phase of education for that reason. We want to create an education system that is diverse and plays to the strengths and aspirations of every young person. For some young people, that will mean an exclusively academic route and for others it will mean a high status vocational route. For others, it will mean a mixture of the two. The key is an education system that is tailored to the needs of the individual young person. When we publish our proposals on 14 to 19-year-old education in January, we will begin to demonstrate what we mean by that vision.

Annette Brooke: My education authority of Poole has the lowest sixth form funding but excellent A-level results are achieved. In order to ensure the improvements that we all desire, will the Minister ensure that when the new funding arrangements start in April, the lowest funded authorities will be considered carefully and brought up to parity with other authorities?

Ivan Lewis: I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Lady makes, but it is relevant to consider the baseline figure that her local authority chose to spend on those establishments. We have made it clear that the Government are committed to a real-terms guarantee on sixth form funding. When responsibility moves to the Learning and Skills Council, that commitment will be maintained. We are working on the baseline figures for 2000-01 for the start of those new funding arrangements.

Sixth Form Colleges

Helen Jackson: What plans she has to establish more sixth form colleges.
	Sheffield has—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should allow the Minister to answer the question first.

Margaret Hodge: That has saved my brilliant answer.
	All young people need access to high-quality education and training in an environment where their needs for pastoral support can be met. Sixth form colleges, sixth form centres in general further education colleges, and school sixth forms provide that. Individual proposals for new sixth form colleges will be considered on their own merits and in the light of local circumstance.

Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. [Laughter.] But, as I was going to explain, I believe that Sheffield is probably the most socially polarised city in the country. That is underpinned by the yawning gap in post-16 provision in the city.
	The proposed sixth form campus for Hillsborough will be a state-of-the-art facility, providing top-class A-level provision, enhanced by engineering courses and top-level vocational courses. It will operate under Sheffield college, but work with the schools in the city. Will my hon. Friend ensure that it fulfils the high hopes and expectations of everyone in the north of Sheffield and Stocksbridge, Chapeltown and High Green, and that the yawning gap in provision starts to reduce?

Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to give my original answer. Having put energy into preparing it, lots of my officials would be upset had I been unable to give it.
	I understand that there are on-going discussions between the stakeholders in Sheffield about how best to respond to the need that my hon. Friend has correctly identified, particularly in the north of the city. I hope that the decision will lead to a local agreement among the partners and I look forward to receiving proposals from the learning and skills council.

Chris Grayling: Is the Minister aware of the concern in many sixth forms and among head teachers about the future financing of those institutions following the introduction of the learning and skills council? Will she give a guarantee that the ring-fenced arrangements for financing school sixth forms will not be removed in the event of a small fall in the sixth form roll?

Margaret Hodge: I am aware of the concerns—change is always difficult. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our promise to maintain real-terms funding for school sixth forms will be kept. I hope that all schools will get their initial allocations in December.

Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing for post-16 education is quality, and that it is crucial that the resources for that sector are shared throughout it? Likewise, it is important that the level of parochialism governing who provides what is also reduced. If there were a fairer division of resources throughout our constituencies, our 16 to 18-year-olds who plan to go to university would get a better education.

Margaret Hodge: There is good quality across all providers of post-16 education in all local education authority areas and we wish to build on that. I hope that the reviews of that provision across the country will help stakeholders plan together to ensure that the needs of all individuals within communities are best met.

Teacher Shortages

Richard Allan: What assessment she has made of teaching staff shortages in (a) further and (b) higher education.

Margaret Hodge: Both further and higher education report recruitment difficulties arising from competition from other institutions and the wider economy. In further education, there are teaching staff shortages in information technology, engineering, science and construction. In higher education, the main shortage subjects are information and communication technology, business studies and engineering.

Richard Allan: I hope that the Minister will agree that British students, including those from both north and south Sheffield, deserve the best possible opportunities to study information technology in further and higher education. On information technology, does she agree that the word "crisis" can be used accurately to describe the shortage of academic staff and, crucially, support staff, whom we simply cannot recruit? What measures will the Government take to increase recruitment and retention in the IT sector in further and higher education?

Margaret Hodge: There are difficulties, but I would not call it a crisis. We are taking steps to overcome those difficulties by working with schools and national training organisations, and by giving additional money to FE and HE to support development and pay for teachers in shortage subjects. All that should help over time, and should prove to be of benefit to all those learners who depend on skilled teachers.

Khalid Mahmood: Where staff vacancies are filled by temporary contract- holders, will my hon. Friend ensure that standards in FE are monitored closely by the Department so that the quality of teaching is maintained?

Margaret Hodge: Standards in FE are being monitored and the new inspection regime involving Ofsted and the adult learning inspectorate is closely examining the quality of teaching in the FE sector. The £300 million that we have set aside in our settlement for FE will support the improvement of standards and we will monitor that closely.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gregory Barker. [Interruption.]

Gregory Barker: Does the Minister accept that, in respect of her comments on the crisis in education recruitment, the intolerable burden of bureaucracy and directives on teachers in the classroom is as much a factor as teachers' pay?

Margaret Hodge: I see that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty in recognising his name.

Gregory Barker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must now answer and the hon. Gentleman must listen.

Margaret Hodge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wanted to tell me that he does know his name, but he certainly has some difficulty in recognising the question under debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to particular shortages in particular subjects, which I acknowledged. We have taken steps to address those problems. To suggest that we are not addressing properly the work load of teachers, or that we are not looking to recruit a sufficient number of teachers to provide high quality-education, is just wrong.

ConneXions Service

Valerie Davey: If she will make a statement on the Connexions service for young people.

Ivan Lewis: ConneXions is already helping young people in 15 areas of the country. It will be available across England by 2003. Early surveys of young people helped by personal advisers show that they feel ConneXions has made a real difference to their prospects.

Valerie Davey: Previous organisations that have set out to help this age group have only been good in part; that is to say, it depended on which part of the country young people lived in. Can the Minister assure the House that, as ConneXions is extended through the country, the quality of the advisers, who are key to improving opportunities for young people, will be maintained at the highest standard?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The success of ConneXions will depend ultimately on the quality and training of the front-line staff. That is why we have introduced the diploma specifically for ConneXions advisers and why, in all the guidance and support we give to partnerships as they roll out, we emphasise the importance of high-quality training. We will build on the expertise and the specialisms that some of the advisers will bring from their existing professions, whether those are social work, youth work or the careers service. We will build on that expertise and develop those skills to ensure that young people have access to a new and high-quality range of support that makes a difference to their participation and attainment within the education system.

Specialist Schools

David Taylor: What impact she expects the expansion of the specialist school scheme to have on the standards of those schools that remain outside the scheme.

Stephen Timms: Specialist schools represent resources for other secondary schools and, through sharing equipment and expertise and drawing on the community element of the additional funding they receive, they will help to enhance standards of teaching and learning in the schools with which they work. Over time we want all those schools that wish to and are ready to become specialist schools.

David Taylor: This month's Ofsted report on specialist schools found that half of the non-sports colleges were not fulfilling the requirement to share resources, good practice and expertise with local schools. Does not that give sustenance to those who consider that specialist schools create a two-tier system that is divisive, incoherent and unfair? By 2006, 50 per cent. of secondary schools will be non-specialist, with lower status, fewer resources and poorer prospects. Will my hon. Friend say how on earth they will be able to drive up standards in the way that he hopes?

Stephen Timms: I commend the Ofsted report to my hon. Friend. It states:
	"The majority of specialist schools are meeting the aims of the programme in large measure, making good use of the advantages that it brings."
	The report explains how schools are extending opportunities and introducing imaginative strategies to raise standards. It explains how attainment is improving faster and how those schools are taking pride in their status. It is a very positive assessment of the benefits of the specialist schools programme.
	However, the Government want more secondary schools to benefit from specialist status. My hon. Friend made the point that nearly half of secondary schools will have done so by 2005, but other schools will be able to work towards achieving specialists status. The Department will set a clear direction and provide support to help them achieve that ambition. The specialist school programme is a powerful lever for raising standards across the whole secondary system, and I encourage my hon. Friend to work with schools in his constituency to move in that direction.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Youth Justice Pledge

Linda Gilroy: What assessment she has made of the success of the efforts of the CPS in implementing the youth justice pledge.

Oona King: What progress has been made towards the Government's target of bringing persistent young offenders before court more speedily.

Harriet Harman: The Crown Prosecution Service has cut down the time taken in prosecuting persistent young offenders. It has done that by recruiting more lawyers and case workers, by tracking and chasing up cases through its own system, and by working closely with the police and the courts.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. She will know that Devon was one of the first areas to cut significantly the amount of time taken to bring young offenders to court. Will she join me in congratulating the staff in Plymouth and across Devon who have achieved that? Will she also thank them on behalf of my constituents, whose communities it is hoped will have fewer hardened criminals in future as a result of the Government's determination to deal with young offenders?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her generous remarks about the CPS in Devon and Cornwall. I spoke this week to the chief Crown prosecutor in that area, Andrew Cresswell, about the situation in the county, and the service has made a great deal of progress. In 1997, it took 109 days to bring a young offender to justice in Devon and Cornwall. That has been reduced substantially, as my hon. Friend has said, to somewhere between 59 and 60 days. However, there is no complacency about what is still a major problem. We must get young offenders before the courts quickly, to ensure that they take matters seriously. It is demoralising for police, magistrates and victims if justice is not done swiftly.

Oona King: I welcome the Government's efforts and their success in reducing the overall amount of time that it takes to get young offenders before the court, but will my right hon. and learned Friend say what will be done about the problem in London? My constituents want me to impress on the Government very strongly how much plague and misery has been heaped on Tower Hamlets, for example, because it is taking too long to get young offenders before the courts. What measures will she take to deal with that?

Harriet Harman: I understand very well the issues that my hon. Friend raises. They are very much the same in my own constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. I was talking recently to a magistrate, who described how demoralising it was to find that an offence could sometimes be more than a year old by the time that it came to court. We must sort that out.
	There have been particular problems in London, although the London prosecuting service has made substantial progress. The average time has been cut from 175 days to 92, but more work remains to be done. More resources have been put in, and there has been a substantial and justifiable pay increase for lawyers, case workers and others in the London service.
	We know what a problem youth crime is. We want the young people themselves to understand that society takes the matter seriously. There is no let-up on the problem.

John Burnett: Surely the success in implementing the youth justice pledge depends on the CPS having adequate resources, personnel and morale to cope with the task. On morale, will the Solicitor-General give the House her views on the Denman report, which was published during the summer recess? What is her opinion of the impact of that report on the CPS? Which of the recommendations in that report will the Government implement?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of morale in ensuring that we have an effective prosecution system. The Denman report found that there was not equality of opportunity for ethnic minority staff in the CPS, and that there was institutional racism. The report has been accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, by the Attorney-General, and by me. Sylvia Denman made various recommendations to ensure equality in the service, that targets are set and positive action is taken to achieve them, and that grievances are dealt with promptly, and steps are being taken to put them into effect. It is important for any public sector employer to be an equal opportunity employer, but that is especially important in the criminal justice system. If the CPS is to command the confidence of the multicultural communities that it serves, it must abide by fairness. We will continue to keep a very close eye on the matter.

Victims of Crime

Andrew MacKinlay: When she expects to introduce legislation to allow courts to take account of the views of the victims of crime.

Harriet Harman: The courts do now take into account the views of the victims of a crime of the effect of the crime on them. Victim personal statements have been introduced in a scheme that started on 1 October. The personal statement will stay with the case file throughout the prosecution, and will be taken into account in sentencing. A practice direction was issued by the Lord Chief Justice to that effect.
	It is important that victims are clear that the effect of the crime on them is very much in the minds of judges when sentencing

Andrew MacKinlay: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will she introduce legislation at an early opportunity that will place a duty on the police and the CPS to ensure that victims are kept abreast of the progress being made in regard to the crime perpetrated against them? I know that that is good practice, but the approach is not adopted consistently by the police or the CPS across the country. It is time for the problem to be addressed. People have a right to know whether progress is being made and, if not, why not.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that victims of crime know what is happening with their cases, and that they are not just left in the dark. It is especially important that victims are told and given an explanation if charges are to be downgraded or dropped. We have introduced a new scheme, which is being rolled out now, under which different ways are being piloted to ensure the very best of communication with victims throughout the prosecution process. I am glad that my hon. Friend is concerned about victims and know that he will remain so, but we should see how the new schemes—the victim personal statements and the new ways of communicating with victims—work out. By changing custom and practice, we may not need legislation. However, if that does not work, we should legislate.

William Cash: Will the Solicitor-General tell the House what has happened to the enforceable Bill of Rights announced a few months ago by the present Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary? It was intended to provide for victims of crime, and was going to establish an ombudsman to deal with matters relating to complaints about the CPS and the probation service. What has happened to that proposed legislation?

Harriet Harman: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome him to his position on the Front Bench? I genuinely look forward to working with him on the many issues that are my responsibility that do not have party political or, I hope, European implications.
	As for the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, it is very important that all the bits of the machinery are working together. He made particular mention of complaints. The CPS does issue a complaints leaflet, and—without the service knowing—I have personally telephoned the complaints line to see whether the telephone was answered and whether there was someone there ready to help with complaints. I am sure that more can be done.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some other matters, and I shall look into them in detail.

William Cash: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have two bites today.

Domestic Violence

Julie Morgan: What plans she has for the CPS to work in partnership with other agencies to combat domestic violence.

Harriet Harman: The Crown Prosecution Service has just reviewed its guidance to prosecutors to give effect to its full commitment to working with the police, the courts, the voluntary sector and local government to combat domestic violence. The CPS has consulted widely with the public and voluntary sector at both national and local level as part of this review. The responses have shaped the changed guidance that is to be launched next month on behalf of the CPS by Cherie Booth, QC.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for her work as chair of her local domestic violence forum. She has always been a champion in these issues and has made a real difference at local level.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her reply. How have the agencies involved in the Cardiff domestic violence forum been consulted about the new guidelines on domestic violence? As well as the CPS, which plays a full and active role in the forum, other agencies include the police, the health service, local authority services, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, women's aid, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the court services. Multi-agency work is difficult and delicate, and it is important for all those agencies to be involved.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend asks how and whom we consulted. I think that most of the organisations that she lists were involved in the consultation. Because of her expertise and long-standing commitment on this issue, I have raised with her what the guidance would include.
	It is important to recognise that the guidance, which is designed to guide Crown prosecutors in their decision making, is not written on tablets of stone. It will be published next month and, after further discussion, people may want to propose changes about certain issues. The CPS is accountable and answerable, and it will take such proposals into account. Because this will be on the internet, we will be able to make those changes quickly.
	Previously, the guidance has been secret. The CPS is coming out into the open; it is more accountable and transparent. It is not making decisions according to secret guidance; instead it publishes them and is prepared to discuss with partners at local and national level whether the guidance is right.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 29 October—Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill.
	Tuesday 30 October—Second Reading of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
	Wednesday 31 October—Motion to approve the first report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	Remaining stages of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Thursday 1 November—Debate on coalition against international terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 2 November—Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
	Monday 5 November—Second Reading of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]
	Motion to approve the special educational needs code of practice.
	Tuesday 6 November—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 7 November—Second Reading of the International Development Bill [Lords]
	Thursday 8 November—Remaining stages of the Export Control Bill.
	Friday 9 November—Debate on drugs strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The House may also welcome notice that I hope by the end of next week to be in a position to table a resolution to set up the Liaison Committee.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us notice of the business. When might we expect the Chancellor's autumn statement? The sooner the House is made aware of that, the better.
	What on earth is going on in terms of Ministers failing to come to the House to give statements on important matters, so that the House cannot question them? There are a number of examples, the foremost of which has arisen today, regarding the scandalous news from the Audit Commission about accident and emergency units. It is one thing for Ministers to go on the radio in the morning, as is their habit, but why, even if that were to happen first—which it should not—cannot Ministers come to the House of Commons to answer questions, not from the Humphrys and Naughties of this world, but from Members of Parliament?
	The same applies to the letter that we have all had today from the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for adult skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), about something called the individual learning account programme. The hon. Gentleman says that
	"some people are being pressed to sign up for low value, poor quality learning"—
	that is presumably what the programme has been about—
	"and I have decided to act quickly to protect the interests of individual learners and proper use of public funds."
	I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was hinting at there, but it sounds ominous. Why can we not have a statement on that? Instead, a letter has been sent to Members of Parliament saying,
	"Estelle Morris has this afternoon answered a written question in the House."
	Are we supposed to be satisfied with that? Giving a written answer or appearing on the radio appears to be the way in which the Government regularly sneak out these announcements,
	I read in a newspaper today that an announcement about terminal 5 may be about to be sneaked out under the cover of our ground troops going into Afghanistan. We have been through this so many times in the recent past. I want a guarantee from the Leader of the House that we will have a proper statement on terminal 5 before anyone else hears about it in any other way so that the many people directly affected by the issue can be properly represented in this House by their Members of Parliament asking questions of a Minister following a statement.
	Will the Leader please set an example? Will he give us a lead? Will he give a guarantee that we will not only be the first to hear about these matters but that we will have the opportunity properly to question Ministers about them?

Robin Cook: I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I can give a guarantee that there will be an oral statement in the House on terminal 5. No decision has yet been taken, but when it is, it will be announced in the House by means of an oral statement. The right hon. Gentleman knows the rules—no Minister will speak to the press or anyone else until there has been an oral statement in the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to make the right hon. Gentleman happy. He asked for a guarantee and he has got one. What he wants will happen and I would appreciate his welcome for that.
	As for the autumn statement, it will be made in the autumn, which is, in terms of the House, liberally interpreted, although I anticipate that it will be before we rise for the next recess.
	On accident and emergency departments, it is worth remembering that the figures announced today by the Audit Commission are 18 months old. In the past 12 months, the period for very long stays has halved. Today we have made it clear that we are not satisfied with the position. We want to do better—that is why we are investing in another 600 nurses for training in accident and emergency departments. It will take us time to reach our target of a maximum wait of four hours in accident and emergency departments. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will get there a lot faster than the 18 years it took the previous Government to ruin the national health service.
	On the individual learning account, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not present for Education and Skills questions, when the subject was raised orally. I welcome the fact that he has drawn attention to it because we are in difficulty entirely because we have wildly exceeded our target. We set a target of 1 million, and 2.5 million people have come forward to take advantage of the new ILA.
	I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that we have exceeded our target. We have more than doubled the figures we were aiming at. I shall try to ensure that we have more statements so that, when we exceed our targets, the House is fully aware of that fact and the right hon. Gentleman can welcome it.

Andrew Bennett: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, which will be debated tomorrow, and press him to consider reforming the way in which private Members' Bills are dealt with? The Bill has widespread support from conservation groups, and wide cross-party support in the House, yet after a lot of work has gone into its preparation it is now rumoured that the Government Whips may intend to sabotage it because the wind power lobby has managed to nobble someone. Would it not be better to have a proper Second Reading tomorrow, get the Bill into Committee and have the small details properly scrutinised, rather than having Government Whips sabotaging private Members' Bills?

Robin Cook: If my hon. Friend has evidence of sabotage by the Whips, I shall be very pleased if he shares it with me. [Laughter.] I honestly do not see what is hilarious about that. If my hon. Friend has evidence for a serious allegation I will, of course, pursue it. I do not see anything particularly hilarious in the Leader of the House wishing to pursue such a serious allegation. [Interruption.] It would assist my hon. Friend if Opposition Members took the matter as seriously as he does.
	The Government will, of course, express a view in the debate tomorrow; a Minister will take part, as is normally the case with private Members' business. A number of concerns must be addressed if the Bill is to become an Act. They are wide ranging, and cover access to wrecks, the development of water sports and a range of economic interests such as wind farms, access to ports, and shipping. The House can consider all those issues tomorrow, and come to a considered and balanced view.

Paul Tyler: I suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, may share my delight, amazement and surprise that the Leader of the House has been able to promise us that no statement will be made to the House that has already been pre-empted by a media appearance. Has the right hon. Gentleman checked that out with Mr. Jim Naughtie and Mr. John Humphrys—because I suspect that he has now cancelled the "Today" programme for the foreseeable future?
	May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the statement made on the radio this morning by the Secretary of State for Health about the Audit Commission report was far from full, and was certainly not subjected to the sort of inquisition that he would have received in the House had he decided to make a statement here? The Secretary of State referred to bed blocking, which he said had been dealt with in a statement earlier this month. That statement, too, was made outside the House, a few days before we resumed after the summer recess.
	May we have a statement by the Secretary of State for Health no later than Monday? Clearly there are wide concerns about accident and emergency departments, which are not improving as fast as has been suggested either here this afternoon or on the radio this morning. The announcement about bed blocking that was made just before the House resumed does not deal with some of the problems, so can we be assured that we will get that statement?
	When does the Leader of the House expect to introduce, and in what form, the legislation to deal with media moguls? He may have noticed that there was a serious escalation this morning in the hostilities between The Mirror and The Sun. Will he—having served in the Foreign Office so long—use his best endeavours to try to prevent hostilities being resumed on that front? Does he believe that his intervention through the new legislation will deal with that problem as well?

Robin Cook: It does not lie within my power to cancel the "Today" programme—and it would probably be unwise to disclose what I would do with that power if I had it.
	On the question of statements to the House, the House has to retain some perspective. In the past week we have had three major statements from Ministers, and I am sure that next week we will also have major statements, and we will continue to make sure that major developments in policy come before the House. At the same time, the House has other business, and we have to ensure that we achieve a balance. The hon. Gentleman would be among the first to complain if the net result were to reduce significantly the time available for the scrutiny of legislation in the House.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, it would take a braver man than me to try to end hostilities between The Sun and The Mirror.

Joan Ryan: Will my right hon. Friend make available dedicated time within oral questions— I suggest 10 minutes—during which Members could question the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? If a Member wishes to put a question at present, that has to be done within DTI questions. Responsibility for women is a big, important area, and if we wish to put a question on trade and industry we cannot also put one to my right hon. Friend on her duties as Minister for Women. There is an issue of accountability here, so will the Leader of the House consider making time available, in much the same way as we have just seen for questions to the Solicitor-General?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a point that has been raised by a number of Members, and we are considering the issue. It is not entirely straightforward because, of course, the effect would be to diminish the rest of the time during which the Secretary of State is accountable. We shall certainly consider the idea, and I hope that we will be able to reach a satisfactory solution.

Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House will probably welcome the fact that my question about the need for a debate on pedestrian-friendly vehicle fronts—an issue that will come up in Coreper—has been tabled for written answer. However, as this is specific to the House, I ask him now whether we can have the opportunity to debate whether the House of Commons Commission is inadvertently breaking any of the guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments by the way in which it is handling the possible replacement of the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin?

Robin Cook: I would be fairly confident that we were not, because we received full advice before proceeding as we are doing. I stress to the House that—contrary to what I have seen in the press—Mrs. Filkin has not been sacked or dismissed. She has been given an undertaking that should she decide to apply for the next contract, she will be placed on the shortlist. As a Commission, we have taken the decision that it would be right to proceed by open competition. I hope that all those in the House who have argued for greater openness and transparency would want us to use an open and transparent system, rather than make a closed reappointment.

Andrew MacKinlay: I welcome the undertaking by the Leader of the House that there will be a full statement if and when a decision is taken on terminal 5. May I urge him to lean on his right hon. and hon. Friends not to hurry with that decision, because there are changed circumstances, both in the market for aviation and in the security implications, of which cognisance was not taken at the time of the inquiry? I urge him to persuade his colleagues to reflect long and hard before granting permission for terminal 5. The decision will raise a number of issues about the disproportionate clout and influence of the big battalions in this country, such as BAA and British Airways, to influence key decisions in their interests, in contrast to the little influence of the ordinary simple objector.

Robin Cook: I am sure that the factors to which my hon. Friend has referred will be taken into account by my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. He is right to say that such issues raise questions about decisions that may have been taken before 11 September. However, I am sure that my colleagues will have adequate time to reflect on that, which will be reflected in the statement made when they reach their decision. I stress to the House that no decision has yet been reached.

Peter Duncan: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the article in this month's issue of The Parliamentary Monitor entitled, "Labour Blows Cold on Scots' Reduction", questioning the implementation of the boundary commission's proposals for Scotland? Does he share my concern at the blatant gerrymandering in the print and broadcast media by his colleagues at the Treasury and the Scotland Office? Given his personal interest in the matter, will he arrange for an early ministerial statement on how and when the Government will complete the changes in constituency boundaries that will be required by the Scotland Act 1998?

Robin Cook: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything he reads in the papers. The fact is that the boundary commission for Scotland has commenced its review of boundaries, and has indicated that it intends to report early in 2002. The result will be subject to the usual process of appeal, discussion and consultation, and we will make all speed thereafter. There is no decision, no suggestion, no idea and no intention of preventing the boundary commission from proceeding. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in a position to know, because, as a Scottish Member of Parliament who has a personal interest in the matter, I take a close interest.

Derek Foster: May we have an early debate on regional government? That would give us an opportunity to consider the implications of a statement made recently by the Deputy Prime Minister of his determination that there should be a referendum during this Parliament, at least in the north-east, and perhaps for other regions that required it.

Robin Cook: I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister is working on a White Paper on regional government and I anticipate that it will be published in the near future. At that time, the House will of course want to ensure that it, too, has an opportunity to participate in the national debate that we expect the White Paper to spark.

Anne McIntosh: I am tempted to ask for an early debate on what constitutes autumn.
	Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wholly inappropriate for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to make an announcement on what the new Railtrack will be—namely, a company limited by guarantee—in a written answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on a day when that Department answered both oral questions and an Opposition-day debate on such subjects?

Robin Cook: It merely confirms how active my right hon. Friend was on that day. The answer stated that my right hon. Friend proposed setting up a company limited by guarantee and I have heard him say that at least half a dozen times at the Dispatch Box. Of course it is important that Ministers should make major statements to the House and it is also important that the House should have adequate opportunity—as it did twice on that day—to put questions and comments to the Secretary of State, but the House is becoming a bit precious when it suggests Government business cannot be done through written answers and that the technical details of strategic statements should not be followed through by written answers.

Tam Dalyell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question of which I gave his office notice this morning? May we have an assurance next week that no weapons, such as land mines, that would be banned by convention for use by British forces are being used by the US or the British in the campaign from British bases, in particular Diego Garcia? May we have a statement on the use of Gator anti-personnel weapons systems and cluster bombs? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Halo Trust and others who have undertaken brave, long, hard and sustained work over years in Afghanistan to clear existing mines are extremely concerned about the amount of unexploded ordnance raining down?

Robin Cook: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks: no weapons will be used by British forces, or approved for use from British territory, that break any of the international conventions to which we are a party. No land mines have been dropped during the present military campaign, and those cluster bombs that have been used against military targets—one against an al-Qaeda training camp and four against Taliban military installations—were all designed to explode on impact and not for delayed action.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement today that he intends at an early date to table a motion to set up the Liaison Committee—a most important Committee of the House. It is essential that it begins its work as quickly as possible.
	My question relates to the statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Although the conscience of the House is very much on the campaign against international terrorism, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be appropriate to hold a full debate in the House on the implications of the Secretary of State's statement. Northern Ireland is an important part of the United Kingdom and many people think that the decommissioning statement by the IRA is merely about a transfer of weapons from the IRA to Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. There are severe implications for the security of the United Kingdom.

Robin Cook: The rules drawn up by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, supervised by General de Chastelain, are quite explicit: the weapons have to be put beyond future use. The commission has stated that it has seen that happen in the case of ammunition, weapons and explosive. There is no question of any of that material being handed over to any terrorist organisation. To that extent, I want the House to appreciate that there has been real destruction of weapons under the rules provided by the decommissioning body.
	As to a debate in the House, I appreciate that there is considerable interest in the matter both in the House and in the country at large. I am sure that the House will have adequate opportunities to explore it. After all, there was an historic statement on the issue this week and I am sure that the whole House welcomes the progress that the Government and our friends are making in moving forward the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I refer the Leader of the House back to the subject of next Thursday's debate—international terrorism? He will fully understand that millions of people in this country are deeply uneasy about the continued bombing of Afghanistan and his confirmation of the reported use of cluster bombs by United States forces in that country? Does he agree that many people in this country find it incomprehensible that British military forces should be involved, and that we should endorse an American-led operation, with no vote in the British Parliament? Does he not think that, in the interests of democracy, the Government should table a substantive, amendable and debatable motion so that Members of Parliament are required to take a position on whether they think Britain should be involved in this military action against Afghanistan?

Robin Cook: I have sat through many of the debates that we have held on this matter. We should recall that the Government have ensured that the House has had adequate opportunity to debate the international coalition against terrorism. There were three recalls and a further debate will be held next week. There have been plenty of such opportunities for the House to debate and explore the issue and to question Ministers.
	In the course of those debates—to much of which I listened—I was impressed by the degree of support throughout the House for the action being taken by the Government. It is unreasonable for my hon. Friend to pretend that the House has not had an opportunity to express a view, or that the House has not made its will clear during those debates. It is of course open to the small number of Members of Parliament who disagree with that action to express their view, and my hon. Friend has done so, but he cannot deny that the clear will of the House is to support the action.

Pete Wishart: Given the likely and necessary changes to the Government's legislative programme in the light of the events of 11 September, does the Leader of the House think that a Bill to ban tobacco advertising is likely or unlikely? If it is on the unlikely end of the spectrum, what would be his view and that of the Government if the Scottish Parliament were to introduce such legislation so that the practice could at least be banned in Scotland?

Robin Cook: The Scottish Executive and the Government share the same view: it would not make practical sense to try to ban advertising in one part of Britain and not in another. We share the view that our policy is to take forward a tobacco ban and that it should take place at the same time throughout the whole United Kingdom. That is what we shall seek to do at an appropriate time.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite his reply, disquiet remains about the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is not to be reappointed as a matter of course? Indeed, frankly, it is unlikely that in the circumstances she would be reappointed if she applied. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a feeling—perhaps not shared by everyone—on both sides of the House that the commissioner has carried out her duties in an impartial, conscientious manner? Indeed, it is because she was so conscientious that she was told, in effect—in the words used in an earlier exchange—that she should not continue her present duties. That was a deplorable decision and I hope that it can be reconsidered.

Robin Cook: I put it to my hon. Friend that there is no provision for the commissioner, as he suggests, to be reappointed—I think I use his words advisedly—"as a matter of course". Ms Filkin was appointed on a fixed-term contract—[Interruption.] No, she was appointed on a fixed-term contract. Moreover, that fixed-term contract was for precisely the same period—the same term of office—as was held by her predecessor. No commitment was given that she would be, as my hon. Friend put it "reappointed as a matter of course". I deprecate my hon. Friend's comment that she was told that she cannot be appointed. That is most certainly not the case and I hope that Ms Filkin will not believe that. She will be considered on merit, along with other candidates, and if she is the best candidate she will be appointed.

Julian Lewis: I draw attention to early-day motion 248.
	[That this House notes with dismay the unethical behaviour of Jo Moore, a ministerial special adviser, in seeking to exploit the terrorist atrocities in America to 'bury' news stories damaging to the Government; agrees with Charlie Whelan, the former aide to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that her action was 'sickening'; and calls on the Right honourable Member for North Tyneside to remove her from his staff forthwith.]
	That motion, signed by many hon. Members, concerns the exploitation of terrorist atrocities by new Labour spin doctors.
	I had intended to ask for a debate on the motion, but as we have recently held such a debate in Opposition time, may I ask instead for a statement from the Secretary of State for Health or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on the availability of counselling services for civil servants receiving e-mails from obnoxious special advisers, and for Labour Back-Bench Members following interviews with the Government Chief Whip?

Robin Cook: That is the least persuasive bid for a statement that I have heard all afternoon.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that last week Michelin announced its closure in Burnley, losing about 450 jobs. Since then, we seem to have had redundancies every day in the aerospace industries or other industries dependent on aerospace. My right hon. Friend will recognise that the situation in the industry has changed greatly since 11 September. Does he feel that it is time to hold a debate on the Government's approach to manufacturing, which I know the Government believe to be a crucial part of the national economy as well as of the local economy in places such as Burnley?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue—the fact that the impact of 11 September on the aviation industry and on the aerospace industry has been substantial. No one in the Government—

Eric Forth: Tough.

Robin Cook: No, I would never dream of treating redundancies in that way. Redundancies are a serious matter, in whoever's constituency they arise. The Government will certainly continue the work that we are doing to try to restore faith and confidence in and business for the aviation industry. That is why today the Minister responsible for aviation—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—is visiting four of the major airports in order to restore the confidence of the travelling public in their security arrangements. In restoring that confidence lies the best hope of a way forward for the aerospace industry.
	In the meantime, through our regional development agencies—which the Conservatives opposed—and through the Government offices we are doing all that we can to cope with the impact of redundancies on local communities.

David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall last week giving sympathetic consideration to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for a debate on farming and the countryside? Will he now regard that as a matter of urgency, given the continuing and deepening crisis in agriculture and in the rural economy and, coupled with that, the conduct of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
	The Department increasingly appears to have turned its back on agriculture, refuses to answer letters from hon. Members and does not answer parliamentary questions. I tabled a written question for a named-day response on 15 October that, two weeks later, is still not answered despite being a crucial matter for people in my constituency. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly that the Department is increasingly losing any confidence that may have resided in it among people who live in rural areas and those who represent them in this place?

Robin Cook: I shall take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about parliamentary answers and see whether we can get an answer to his specific question. On the issue of the debate, I would be surprised if, sometime in the near future, we did not hold a debate involving that Department. He will understand that I have many conflicting demands to balance, but I know that the Department is keen to have a debate on the countryside.

Charlotte Atkins: What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised before it goes to the House of Lords?

Eric Forth: He's doing the opposite.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am doing the opposite. I was surprised, given his commitment to scrutiny, that his memorandum to his leader suggested that they should ensure that Bills left this place imperfectly scrutinised, in order to discredit the Government.
	I will ensure that there is adequate time for the scrutiny of Bills in the House. I hope that the Opposition will take that opportunity. If they choose instead to conspire to leave Bills imperfectly scrutinised, it is not us but themselves whom they will discredit.

Charles Hendry: May I press the Leader of the House further for a debate on the crisis in our care homes? He rather brushed aside the issue when it was raised a few minutes ago. Will he ensure that that debate not only takes account of the inadequacy of the ministerial press release about the funding for care homes, but considers the catastrophic effects that there would be if the Government's proposed changes to the way in which care homes are managed come into effect next spring, which would make the situation even worse?

Robin Cook: I am not aware of having brushed aside a question on care homes; indeed, I am not aware of having been asked a question on care homes this afternoon. However, I fully understand the importance of the role that they play; I said as much last week. Only this month the Government have taken action to ensure that everyone is entitled to free nursing care. We shall certainly do all that we can to ensure that care homes can play a full part. We need them to play a full part, to ensure that hospitals can focus on those acute cases that require hospital intervention.

Tony Lloyd: May I raise with my right hon. Friend a matter that requires urgent parliamentary attention? It concerns the role of some, if not all, landlords, especially across northern cities where there are areas of very low demand for property. Those landlords, by failing to take any responsibility for their properties and the tenants whom they move in, are having a very serious impact on the quality of life and, of course, on the asset value of the properties of other owners in the area.
	The Government have consulted on the need for a licensing system for private landlords. May I urge my right hon. Friend to tell the House that we can move forward on that licensing, which would have the impact of allowing local authorities to take away access to housing benefit for those landlords who will not act as good citizens?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to the Government. That is why we have issued a consultation document on the selective licensing of private landlords. It was issued as recently as this week and it will obviously be some time before we are able to give a considered response, but we hope that it will enable us to deal with some of the problems that my hon. Friend has identified.

Angela Browning: The Leader of the House said that the Government would shortly introduce legislation to deal with matters of terrorism and extradition. Will he ensure that it encompasses a situation where British nationals leave these shores to participate in military action against this country and our allies, and the consequential action that will be needed if they then seek to re-enter this country?

Robin Cook: The hon. Lady raises an issue that I wrestled with in the Foreign Office in a previous role in relation to a previous conflict. The legal issues involved are extremely difficult, but I understand the point that she raises and I am sure that my colleagues at the Home Office will consider it.

John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate, or at least a statement, on the treatment of deaf and hard of hearing people in the national health service? I have particular concerns about the availability of digital hearing aids, which constitute a major technical advance but the availability of which is very patchy. There are long waiting lists in my area, among others, and I have many constituents who are waiting desperately for a digital hearing aid.

Robin Cook: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a statement, but I will draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ensure that he receives a response from the Department.

Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House further consider granting an emergency debate on British Airways' decision to withdraw its Belfast-London Heathrow service? A debate on that matter would enable us all to consider the options, and especially the slots vacated by British Airways and the possibility that one of several other carriers might use them. Thousands of people from Northern Ireland, who work and live in London, expect a good service, and they are already concerned about arrangements to enable them to get home to their families over the Christmas period.

Robin Cook: I fully understand the great importance of the matter to Northern Ireland, and to those in Britain who wish to visit and travel to Northern Ireland. There is a wider debate about what happens to slots that are vacated in the present difficult times for the aviation industry. That issue, in its generality, is receiving close attention from my colleagues, which is why the aviation Minister is today on a tour of four airports in Britain. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention so that he may consider this point.

David Chaytor: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the publication on 12 September of the long-awaited Government Green Paper on the management of radioactive waste? Given the enormous costs involved in the management of our existing stockpiles of radioactive waste, which now exceed £85 billion according to an answer given last week by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, given the increasing concern about terrorist access to fissile material, and given that the Green Paper calls for a wide-ranging public debate on the very complicated issues involved in the management of that waste, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that subject in the very near future?

Robin Cook: I cannot promise a debate, but some of those issues will be reflected in the forthcoming emergency legislation, which is likely to provide increased scope for the actions by Atomic Energy Authority police. I am sure that some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised could be ventilated in the course of debate.

Paul Goodman: The Independent reported this morning that the news about terminal 5 will be announced
	"at the very moment when Britain appears to be about to join a land war against the Taliban".
	How on earth is that statement compatible with the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave earlier? Will he now give a firm guarantee, which he failed to give to the shadow Leader of the House, that an announcement on terminal 5 will be made to the House before any news of it is released to my former colleagues in the media?

Robin Cook: Of course that statement will be made to the House. Indeed, I said precisely that to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the decision and the announcement should be delayed until a time that he regards as appropriate. The longer that it is delayed, the more probable it is that any decision will be leaked by one means or another—not necessarily by ministerial action, as it is not only Ministers who will be privy to such a decision. Frankly, it is in the interests of the House that that statement comes as soon as possible after the decision is taken. We have to recognise that we cannot put on hold all the important decisions that need to be taken for the running of Britain because we are engaged in a very important struggle against international terrorism.

Joan Ruddock: Further to my right hon. Friend's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on the reorganisation of Department of Trade and Industry questions, will he look at the official record for the Session 1997-98? He will find that the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and I regularly answered questions about women during Social Security questions. We had the time, but it was not for the convenience of the House and it interrupted the good flow of questions and debate. I strongly recommend that my right hon. Friend considers allocating a separate 10-minute slot. Perhaps he could tell us when he might report on that matter.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her advice and I will certainly take it into account when making my decision.

John Burnett: I appreciate that not every hon. Member considers Solicitor-General's questions the most riveting event that takes place. Nevertheless, with 10 minutes we get through only two or three questions. Will the Leader of the House restore Solicitor-General's questions to its former glory of a quarter of an hour?
	I also wish to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We not only have outrageous delays from DEFRA on parliamentary answers; there are also delays with correspondence from Ministers to Members. It is just not good enough and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make the appropriate point to the Minister concerned. We must have swifter replies to Members' questions from DEFRA.

Robin Cook: I shall certainly ensure that DEFRA is aware of the comments that have been made. In saying that, I in no way necessarily endorse the criticisms of the Department.
	I commend the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm and interest in Solicitor-General's questions. He makes a modest bid for five minutes more. It sounds modest when it is an add-on to those questions, but I am not sure that it will necessarily appear quite so modest when it is taken out of someone else's time.

Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are consulting on the Budd report on gambling. It could have a far-reaching impact on many constituencies, and on mine in particular because several hundred people are employed making penny fall machines, of which he may be aware from his visits to the seaside. Some of the recommendations threaten the sale of those machines.
	I have been trying to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject—so far without success, but I will continue. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a debate on the report in Government time, possibly in Westminster Hall one afternoon?

Robin Cook: One of the regrets of no longer visiting the Winter Gardens is missing out on the opportunity to play the penny fall machines. The allocation of Adjournment debates goes beyond my remit, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's observations will have been heard by those who have control over them.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate on the ploy whereby Cabinet Ministers who do not want to answer oral questions simply shuffle them off to be written answers given by colleagues? The Cabinet Office guide to ministerial responsibilities clearly states that the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility on behalf of the Prime Minister for negotiations on climate change. Indeed, as recently as 24 September the Deputy Prime Minister opened the international panel on climate change conference here in London—yet when I successfully tabled an oral question on the subject to him, he simply shuffled it off to be answered as a written question by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the Deputy Prime Minister have responsibility for climate change negotiations? If he does, should he not be accountable to the House for those responsibilities?

Robin Cook: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for our contribution towards meeting our targets on climate change. The Minister for the Environment is fully engaged in that process and is perfectly competent to answer questions. I know from the work that I used to do at the Foreign Office of the excellent work done by the Deputy Prime Minister and the high respect in which he is held throughout the world for it. He should be held in the same high respect in the country on whose behalf he speaks.

Julie Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the services provided by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service? As I understand it, the director of operations left two months after the new service was set up earlier this year and the chief executive is away sick. A judicial review recently ruled that CAFCASS acted unlawfully in the way it gave contracts to the children's guardians. I also understand that a large number of managers have left throughout the country.
	As someone who managed a guardian ad litem team, I am aware of the very important work that children's guardians do in helping to advise courts about the future of vulnerable children. I would be grateful if he could find time for that important issue to be discussed.

Robin Cook: I cannot promise a debate, but I read with interest the early-day motion on the subject, which expresses views similar to those of my hon. Friend. I will be happy to draw it to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the hope that it will alert it to the widespread and understandable concern among hon. Members about the impact of the service in their constituencies.

Mark Prisk: Flooding is of particular pertinence in my constituency and those of other hon. Members. In Bishop's Stortford and the surrounding villages there has been a severe crisis this week. My worry and that of other hon. Members is that we hear comments by Ministers on the issue and occasionally, if we are lucky, get letters from them, but we do not have statements in the House. It is important, particularly at this point in the autumn, to know exactly where the Government stand. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an early statement on the issue?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman cannot complain that sufficient attempts have not been made to show where the Government stand. We have increased investment in flood defences and greatly increased the number of residential properties covered by flood warnings. We will continue to give that matter priority. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), is active on that matter today.
	I think that I have received seven demands for statements—possibly more, but certainly not less—and unless the Chamber is to become a place for the receipt of statements it will be impossible to meet all those requirements. The House must recognise that it is important that strategic and major policy announcements are made on the Floor of the Chamber, but if everything is announced here, we will do nothing else.

Paul Flynn: Has not manufacturing industry been traditionally denied its fair share of attention by the House, in spite of the fact that it still contributes 20 per cent. to the English economy and 27 per cent. to the Welsh economy? The events of 11 September have resulted in a serious crisis in the steel and aluminium industries, which is likely to have grave repercussions in my constituency. May we have a debate on manufacturing industry?

Robin Cook: I share my hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of manufacturing industry and its significance for the whole economy. That is why we are pleased that manufacturing exports have increased by 25 per cent. since 1997. I assure him that the Government remain fully committed to building on that success.

Mark Hoban: Following on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), may I urge the Leader of the House to seek from the Chancellor a firm date for the autumn statement, given the £5 billion black hole in the Chancellor's spending plans found by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Home Secretary's announcement on the "Today" programme on Monday that things look bleak on the spending front?

Robin Cook: In fairness to the IFS, the hon. Gentleman would wish me to tell the House that, of course, we are dealing with figures that can only possibly arise in 2003, and even then we would dispute them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will, of course, make an autumn statement during this parliamentary term.

Mark Prisk: When?

Robin Cook: I cannot recall us having an autumn statement before November, and we are not yet into November.

Eric Forth: No?

Robin Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute that fact and to hold a debate on it, I cannot promise that a ministerial statement will be made, but I do not think that we are into November. When the appropriate times comes, there will be a statement.

Evan Harris: The Leader of the House may remember that on 5 July hon. Members voted to allow survivors' benefits to be payable to unmarried couples, whether straight or gay. Indeed, he and his Front-Bench colleagues voted for that measure, and I expressed my gratitude to them the last time that we spoke about the issue. However, is he aware that the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) sought to extend those benefits through civil partnership to non-Members of Parliament under a private Member's Bill that she introduced yesterday, but that no Minister, whom we assume would be given a free vote, voted for that measure?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman think it seemly for Ministers and other Members to be seen to grab benefits for themselves and their unmarried partners, but not to agree that the wider population should have them? In the light of that, will he consider providing Government time for that private Member's Bill, or will the Government introduce their own policy to end the discrimination against people who are not married or who cannot be married?

Robin Cook: First, by convention, Ministers do not take part in ten-minute Bill Divisions for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman suggests—it is important that Government approval, or disapproval, is not read into the actions of individual Ministers. On the other issue that he raises, perhaps in a spirit of humility, I gently remind him that it was his amendment that extended to Members of Parliament the right to pensions for their unmarried partners, and it does not lie well with him to accuse the rest of us of having double standards now.

George Osborne: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate this autumn on the principle of ballistic missile defence? He will remember that in response to a question asked yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Prime Minister said:
	"I do not agree with those who are opposed to it."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 273.]
	The Leader of the House will be aware that a large number of Labour Members have signed early-day motion 23, which opposes ballistic missile defence.
	[That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives.]
	May we have such debate so that those Government Back Benchers can put their views to those on the Government Front Bench, and those of us who, on this issue, support the Prime Minister—indeed, we would like him to go further—can express our views, too?

Robin Cook: I am sure that my hon. Friends will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude in suggesting that they should have an opportunity to express their views. May I remind him that no decision on the matter has been taken, that no decision can be taken until a question is asked of us and that, in those circumstances, it would be rather odd for us to debate it?

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day—first part]

Student Finance

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business—the first part of the third allotted Opposition day. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Rendel: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the best possible education of its citizens is both a principal duty of, and an immeasurable benefit to, any civilised society, and therefore deplores the rising levels of student debt and the resulting disincentive to continue in education post-school; condemns the failure of the Government to invest in Higher Education all the extra resources provided by the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of tuition fees; regrets that the conclusions drawn from reviews of student finance in Scotland and Wales have been ignored in Westminster; congratulates the Scottish Executive on abolishing tuition fees and restoring grants for students from low income backgrounds; believes that part-time students and students in Further Education should be treated fairly in comparison with full-time students in Higher Education; notes the recent decision by the Government to review student finance more widely; and calls upon the Government to abolish tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to put in place a fully funded support system, which will encourage more students, particularly those from low income backgrounds, to go into higher education.
	May I begin by saying how pleased I am that my right hon. and hon. Friends have chosen to debate student finance today and that they have asked me to move the motion in our names? May I make it plain that I have nothing to gain personally from the abolition of tuition fees, although I do have considerable personal experience of paying them? I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and, I understand, with the previous Secretary of State, the experience of having a child who was, unfortunately, involved in the first year of tuition fees. I have another son at university now, and my youngest son hopes to go to university in 2003, which, if all goes well, should be the last year of tuition fees.
	So it is not for reasons of personal benefit that I am pleased that my party has given this issue the highest priority for debate today; rather it is because in June this year two issues stood out as being uniquely Liberal Democrat issues: free long-term care for the elderly and the abolition of tuition fees. We received massive support from the public on both issues, and they represent the two greatest errors that the Labour Government made in their first term in office. We said that tuition fees were "a tax on education", and we were right.
	A sensible Government choose to tax things that they want less of; they avoid taxing things that they want more of. Liberal Democrats believe in education. We believe that education is one of the cornerstones of a civilised society. We believe that the best possible education for each individual in our nation is valuable not just for that individual, but for society as a whole. We also believe that education is not just about equipping the individual with the knowledge and skills that he or she needs for the jobs of the modern world, but about giving that individual the opportunity to make the most of his or her natural talents and abilities in every aspect of his or her life.
	However, the student support system acts as a barrier to young people who want to go to university, particularly for the poorest students. First, there is the upfront payment of tuition fees—the tax on education. The Government have tried to argue that tuition fees are no disincentive. After all, they say, the poorest 50 per cent. or so of students will not have to pay them. But, of course, it is really nothing to do with whether the student is rich or poor. Almost all students are poor, and if it was only rich students who paid tuition fees, they would never have been worth collecting. No, the means testing is done, not on the student, but on the parent.
	Some parents pay, but many see no reason why they should continue to subsidise their adult offspring, just because those offspring happen to be intelligent enough to be offered a place at a university. So the sons and daughters of comparatively well-off parents usually end up paying the tuition fees. Often such students end up even more deeply in debt than other students whose parents happen to be less well-off.
	Where is the logic in a student finance system in which a graduate who enters a comparatively low-paid but socially useful job may have to pay off greater debts than a graduate who earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in the City, but whose parents happen to have been in less well-paid jobs? What is fair about that? Let there be no doubt that worries about debt are very real. Students can now expect to graduate with an average debt of £10,000, and often more. Of course, tuition fees make up only a part of that debt, and it is true that many students will not have to pay tuition fees.
	I must confess that I too was at first taken in by the seductive argument that tuition fees cannot possibly be a disincentive to those who will not have to pay them. However, I visited Durham university recently, and there I spoke to a first-year student who had come up only a month or so before. She described herself as coming from a working-class background. She told me that no less than four of her friends had decided not to go to university because they did not want to get into debt. They had heard about tuition fees, and they were frightened.
	It does not matter whether the fear of debt is soundly based; it is the fear itself that produces the disincentive. So will the Government now finally admit that tuition fees and the perception of tuition fees constitute a barrier to young people who want to go to university? How long before the Government stop monitoring and wake up to the crisis in our higher education system? Students are fed up with monitoring—they want tuition fees to be abolished. A sensible Government levy taxes for education and not on education.
	Tuition fees are of course only a part of the debt problem. Students must also maintain themselves. The Government fought the election saying that there was not a problem. They apparently saw no contradiction between their target of 50 per cent. participation and the system of student support that they introduced in 1998. During the campaign, however, the Prime Minister apparently woke up to the fact that young people and their parents do see a problem.
	In the review of student funding announced at the Labour party conference, one stated objective was to
	"tackle the problems of debt and the perception of debt".
	The Secretary of State has explicitly recognised that debt is a barrier to access. On 4 October, she was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
	"I recognise that for many low income families fear of debt is a real worry and could act as a barrier to higher education. I want to make sure that our future reform tackles this problem."
	The following day, the Chancellor was quoted in The Times Higher Education Supplement as follows:
	"As we examine the financing of universities and the problems of student loans and fees, the test will be to break down the barriers that hold people back, so that all, and not just those who can afford it, have the chance to make the most of themselves and their talents."
	I suggest to the Minister for Lifelong Learning that if she has the Chancellor's backing, she has a much better chance than most of getting some extra finance into the system.

David Chaytor: If there is a direct relationship between cost and access, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, during the long period when there were no tuition fees and there was a 100 per cent. grants system, the proportion of young people from working-class backgrounds going to university did not increase? When such education was free, working-class people still did not go to university. Why was that?

David Rendel: I am delighted to answer that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman raises an important problem. There are clearly reasons other than the fear of debt that influence the question—one of which is the number of children who go on to post-16 education. That is a particular problem for the sort of children to whom he referred. I am sure that the fear of debt and especially of having to pay tuition fees—even if, in practice, such students will not have to do so—are at least part of the important problem that we face.
	The facts speak for themselves. According to the Barclays student debt survey, since the 1998 reforms, average student debt has roughly doubled from about £3,000 to about £6,000, and average debt on graduation is expected to rise from £6,500 in 2000 to around £10,000 in 2001. The National Union of Students estimates that that figure is more in the region of £12,000. It points to a recent debt survey by the University College London student union, in which only 12 per cent. of respondents expected to be debt-free on graduation. Of those expecting to be in debt, 38 per cent. expected to owe up to £10,000, 50 per cent. between £10,000 and £20,000, and 12 per cent. more than £20,000. Of those surveyed, 18 per cent. had considered dropping out altogether as a result of financial difficulties.
	Even before the new arrangements were introduced, the student income and expenditure survey for 1998–99 found that 87 per cent. of full-time students experienced financial difficulties, and that 60 per cent. thought that such difficulties had damaged their academic performance. So why has it taken the Government so long to reach the conclusion that debt and the perception of debt represent a barrier to access?
	At least we Liberal Democrats can now welcome the Government's decision to conduct a review—and we do. At last the Government have recognised that a disincentive is built into the system. Until now, they have maintained that there was no disincentive. Students, they say, can look forward to higher incomes later, but many students never receive those higher incomes. Even for those who do so, the costs are up front, while the benefits are three or four years down the line.

Alistair Burt: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the review of student finance—we all would—but does he share my substantial concern and surprise that the review is being conducted entirely internally and cross-departmentally, so the very people who devised the system about which we are all complaining are devising the new one, too?

David Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I certainly share that concern, and I shall make a small offer in relation to it in a moment.
	It is not just those who see themselves going into low-paid jobs who fear mounting debts. A recent British Academy report of graduate studies in the humanities and social sciences made two points. First, the United Kingdom is failing to attract sufficient numbers of the best British students to take PhDs in the arts, humanities and social sciences, and, secondly, debt is a major deterrent to potential PhD students.
	Sadly, debt causes damage not only as a disincentive. It is clear that student finance has an impact on the quality of the university experience. The experience is valuable not just because it improves career prospects, but because it offers wider educational benefits—the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, the coming together of people from different backgrounds, exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking and, of course, the gaining of greater personal independence and freedom.
	So what are the implications of the fact that close to two thirds of students take up part-time work to help fund their way through university, or of a growing number of students opting to live at home because it is cheaper? Clearly, those trends mean less time to engage in the wider experience of university life, with all the extra benefits that that can bring.
	The central problem is that the Government are committed to expansion but not to providing the money to pay for it. If they are serious about widening participation, they must address the funding issue. We know that that can be done. How do we know that? We know because it has been done. In Scotland, tuition fees have been abolished; grants for students from poorer backgrounds have been reintroduced. We Liberal Democrats are delighted that our Scottish colleagues were able to persuade the Scottish Executive to make those changes. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in Scotland have jointly proved that a better system is possible and can be afforded.

Diana Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Rendel: I shall give way in a moment.
	The Scottish system is not the only possible way of financing students. Indeed, it may not even be the best one. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are not dogmatic about that.

Jon Owen Jones: Well, give way then.

David Rendel: If the Government wish as part of their review to discuss alternative proposals with us, we shall be happy to do so. I make that offer freely.

Diana Organ: The hon. Gentleman referred to the value of higher education and the Government's desire to increase participation in and access to it. Do he and his party agree, therefore, with the target of 50 per cent. of young people having access to higher education? Is he committed to that, as his party should be?

David Rendel: The important issue is that students must have a quality university experience. There is no point in a target that results in more and more people going to university if the Government fail to meet the need to maintain unit funding for those students. If funding can be maintained, we would of course like the maximum number of students to go through university—if possible, even more than 50 per cent. of young people. If they can derive some value from their university experience, let us do that. However, without such valuable experience, doing so would be a waste of money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Rendel: I have taken enough interventions for the time being.
	In replying to the debate, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm or deny the rumours that the following options are under consideration in her review: first, the abolition of tuition fees; secondly, a graduate tax; thirdly, the restoration of maintenance grants, at least for students from less well-off backgrounds; and, fourthly, whether student loans will still be made available.
	I hope that the Minister will also assure us that universities will not receive less money if extra resources are to be directed towards student support. The Government delude themselves if they believe that they can expand student numbers and deliver a world-class higher education system without a substantial boost in funding
	The Secretary of State rightly said in her speech on 22 October:
	"Universities are not a birthright for the middle classes."
	However, wider access to a bargain basement higher education system would be a betrayal of the young people the Government say they want to support. Just as higher education should not be a birthright of the middle classes, we must ensure that quality is available to all.
	Our country needs a world-class system of higher education; our students deserve it. We need to provide grants, at least for students from less well-off backgrounds. However, tuition fees have no part to play in such a system.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Jon Owen Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman given way or has he finished his speech?

David Rendel: I have finished.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was giving way.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'welcomes the approach the Government has taken to higher education since 1997, particularly the extra investment the Government is making in Higher Education, meaning an extra £1.7 billion of publicly planned funding in the six years to 2003–04; further welcomes the Government's commitment to widening participation so that half of under-30 year olds will benefit from the opportunities of higher education by the end of the decade; supports the Government's reforms of student support, introduced in 1998, which have increased the resources available to higher education establishments; agrees with the principle, underlying these reforms, that those who benefit from the considerable advantages that higher education can offer are asked to contribute when they can afford to; recognises that the Government has always been committed to monitor and to review the impact of these reforms; and further welcomes the Secretary of State for Education and Skills' recent announcement of this review.'.
	I am not surprised that hon. Members were not sure whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) had given way. It was not clear whether he had finished his contribution or, indeed, what he was talking about. However, I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have given us the opportunity today to engage in a short debate on higher education. It gives me the opportunity, early in the lifetime of the Parliament, to set out the Government's vision for expanding higher education.
	I shall have to ignore much of the Liberal Democrat contribution because, in my simple little way, I do not understand the difference between a Scottish graduate endowment of £2,000 and payment towards the cost of education in a tuition fee. They may be called different names but they are the same.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make my second attack.
	It was interesting that the Liberal Democrats did not make a commitment to widening participation in and access to higher education. That is the basis for everything on our agenda for universities.

Phil Willis: What is the difference between paying an endowment at the end of an undergraduate's course of study and a graduate tax, which would be paid into the same pot?

Margaret Hodge: All the systems reflect a contribution from the student—as a student or a graduate; directly or through the family—towards the cost of higher education. That principle is accepted by all parties.

Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Does she agree that it is disingenuous of a party that campaigned on honesty in taxation to talk about getting rid of student tuition fees without mentioning the fact that the policy was to be financed through graduate endowment payments? Where is the honesty in taxation in that policy?

Margaret Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend's views. Liberal Democrat policies show little honesty, rigour or ability to add up.

Don Foster: The Minister clearly does not understand the system in Scotland. It is therefore vital to place on record the fact that the money that students in Scotland pay after they have graduated is used as a contribution to increase maintenance support for students. It is not used to pay for tuition.

Margaret Hodge: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is being rather too clever. Students are worried about the total cost of their education, which comprises tuition and maintenance: simply renaming the contribution from individuals before or after they have graduated is beside the point.
	I should like to set out our ambitions to try to give the debate some coherence. We have said that by the end of the decade we want half of our young people to have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the time they reach the age of 30. That is a tough and challenging ambition, but that target is part of our wider policies for higher education. It encapsulates many of the values that underpin our general approach to government. If we are to maintain and enhance capability and competitiveness in our economy, we need to improve the skills and capabilities of individuals in the labour market.
	Expanding higher education is not, as has been suggested by some, about dumbing down degree standards. Far from it; it is about raising attainment and qualifications levels so that we enjoy the appropriate and necessary skills that we need in the labour market to boost growth and prosperity. Indeed, it has been calculated that a 10 per cent. increase in the proportion of the labour force in higher education would raise the gross domestic product per person by about 3.3 per cent.

Edward Davey: The Government reformed the student finance system only three or four years ago. Why, therefore, does the Prime Minister feel the need for a review?

Margaret Hodge: I can answer that easily. The hon. Gentleman focuses on one element of a much broader policy, which I shall discuss. Any sensible Government would monitor their policies to ensure that they work precisely as they envisaged. I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree that it is appropriate for students or their families to make a contribution towards the cost of higher education because of the benefits that they gain through it. That did not happen before we introduced our reforms.
	Our economic goal is closely linked with our social objective. We do not perceive economic prosperity and social inclusion as competing ambitions. On the contrary, we shall achieve our economic objectives only if we ensure opportunity for all our young people to develop their full potential. Nowhere is exclusion a harsher reality than in higher education. The facts make grim and stark reading.
	Despite the rapid expansion in student numbers in the past decade, the proportion of young people from lower-income backgrounds who go to university has remained stubbornly low. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) rightly made that point earlier. Those whose parents come from an unskilled or manual working background have just over a one in 10 chance of getting to university. Those whose parents happen to prosper in the professional classes have a three in four chance of getting to university. It is a 13 per cent. chance for those who are less well-off, but a 73 per cent. chance for those who are better off. That is the measure of the challenge that we face and the inequality that we are considering. That is the enormity of the gap in opportunity that we are trying to tackle.
	Closing that gap is at the heart of our determination to widen participation. Our aim must be to challenge all the barriers that inhibit access to higher education and to create an intellectual élite, who have access to higher education through their ability.

Adam Price: Does not evidence show that removing the maintenance grant has had a greater impact than the abolition of tuition fees on less well-off students? The National Union of Students has produced evidence to show that the average debt for less well-off students has increased from £6,000 in 1997 to £12,000 in 2000.

Margaret Hodge: The proportion of people from lower-income backgrounds who participate in higher education has not altered since the introduction of the new student arrangements. I wish that the matter was as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	We must deal with every barrier that prevents children from lower-income backgrounds from enjoying the experience and benefits of higher education.
	That challenge is particularly important to me. I know from my constituency how huge a mountain we have to climb. In Barking, only 3.5 per cent. of my adult constituents have a degree or equivalent qualification. The constituency has a lower participation rate than any other constituency in the country. I therefore understand how difficult it is to tackle the complex barriers that inhibit participation.
	I also know, however, what a difference higher education can make to the lives of individuals, as well as to their communities and the economy. A degree does buy a better income. Indeed, all the evidence shows that, despite a rapid growth in the number of graduates, the graduate premium in earnings has been maintained. A graduate will, on average, earn 35 per cent. more than the work force as a whole. A graduate is half as likely to be unemployed as someone without a degree. Moreover, a graduate is likely to stay healthy for longer than a non-graduate.

Diana Organ: I am delighted to hear that we are keen to ensure that those who formerly encountered barriers are given an opportunity to enter higher education, but are not good further education sectors particularly important in that regard?

Margaret Hodge: Further education can certainly make an important contribution to ensuring that young people obtain prior qualifications, and, perhaps, spend the first years of their higher education in an environment to which they are accustomed. As we expand higher education, much of it is indeed being delivered through further education.

David Laws: Liberal Democrats are delighted to learn that the Government are to conduct a review of student finance. What perceived deficiencies in the existing system will it seek to remedy?

Margaret Hodge: As I told the hon. Member for Newbury, it is sensible and good practice to review whether one's policies are working properly.

David Laws: rose—

Margaret Hodge: I must get on with my speech. If the hon. Gentleman has a new point to make, no doubt it will arise later.
	Higher education remains a very good investment for students, which brings me to an important principle that we have already discussed today. Given the personal financial benefits that accrue to graduates, it must be right for them to contribute to the cost of their higher education. That principle was courageously established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he introduced his radical reforms of student funding and support in 1998. We will not shift from it as we conduct our review—properly and responsibly—to establish whether the reforms are working effectively.
	It might be helpful to recall the context of the 1998 reforms. In 1997, when Labour took office, there had been a massive 36 per cent. cut in unit funding for students; the previous Conservative Government—whose members are not listening very carefully at the moment—had imposed a cap on student numbers; and our universities had been starved of proper resources for their infrastructure, teaching and research.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister acknowledge that, over the 18 years of Conservative government, the opportunities to attend university that she considers so important expanded dramatically? In 1979, only about 10 per cent. of young people went to university; by the time Labour took office, the figure had risen to about a third.

Margaret Hodge: I acknowledge that there was a rapid expansion of student numbers under the Conservative Government. My point is that that expansion was appallingly funded, which has created difficulties in regard to the quality of education. The last Government caused their own difficulties by capping student numbers.
	I pay huge tribute to the higher education sector. Despite that enormous underfunding, it managed to expand numbers while maintaining quality. We are still punching well above our weight in terms of research, and the university sector is in good health.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister also acknowledge that, if we subtract the Wellcome Foundation's investment in research, the unit of funding per higher education student during this Government's lifetime has continued to fall year on year, and is now less than it was in 1995?

Margaret Hodge: I do not accept that. I do accept that unit funding declined until, during the last comprehensive spending review, we injected a further £1.7 million of publicly planned resources into the higher education sector. That has enabled us to achieve a 1 per cent. increase this year, for the first time in more than a decade.

David Chaytor: During the last Parliament, did not the amount given to primary and secondary education increase dramatically, thereby enabling far more young people to go to university after leaving school?

Margaret Hodge: Indeed—and what underlies that is the fact that, during our first term in government, we focused additional resources on schools in particular. It was important to get that right.
	Our reforms of student funding enabled us to start tackling the unholy mess that we had inherited. We have lifted the cap on student numbers, and every individual capable of undertaking higher education now has the opportunity to do so. We are investing an extra £1.7 million of publicly planned expenditure—18 per cent. in real terms. For the first time in a decade, we have financed a 1 per cent. increase in the funding of each student, and, together with the Wellcome Foundation, we have invested £1 billion on the research infrastructure in our universities.
	That investment is supporting our participation agenda. This year's figures continue to show a buoyant demand for places. The latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service show a 5.5 per cent. increase in the number of people allocated a university place this year, and a particularly pleasing increase of more than 10 per cent. in the number of mature students who have managed to enter higher education. Having achieved those considerable advances in the first term of a Labour Government, we are considering what further action we need to tackle all the existing barriers.

Joan Ryan: I applaud the Government's focus on higher education and the increase in participation rates, but is it not important for the review to examine the possibility of more up-front support for students with less advantageous socio-economic backgrounds?

Margaret Hodge: Support for students throughout post-compulsory education is crucial. We have introduced an education maintenance allowance, albeit on a pilot basis applying to only 30 per cent. of the country. That is a very good way of increasing participation. I accept, however, that we must bear in mind the link between the perception of debt and lower-income families.
	Let me now deal with what I consider to be equally important issues. Perhaps our most important and difficult task is to increase the number of young people who obtain level 3—A-level—qualifications. At present, nine out of 10 of those who obtain A-levels go on to university. Our challenge is to stop the haemorrhage of young people who leave school at 16 after their GCSEs, and to increase the number who remain in full-time education. That is what our secondary school reform proposals are about, and that is what will be addressed by the strategy on 14 to 19-year-olds that we will publish in the new year. That is why we have introduced the education maintenance allowances, which have achieved a dramatic increase, and that is why we are introducing the ConneXions service. That is our key task.
	Equally challenging is the task of raising aspirations among young people.

Charlotte Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that year 8 is a particularly important year? It is the year before students take their GCSE options, and a year in which universities and secondary schools could work much more closely together to ensure that students' aspirations are raised. I commend the work that Staffordshire university does in terms of widening access and working with local schools.

Margaret Hodge: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about ensuring that we raise students' aspirations at an early enough age. There has, possibly, been a tradition of thinking that if we can capture students at 15 or 16, before they take their GCSEs, we will achieve that increased participation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to reach them at a much younger age. Again, access to the 14 to 19-year-old agenda is all about ensuring those raised aspirations.
	One of the most shocking statistics that I discovered when I first took over this portfolio was that 44 per cent. of children from the lower socio-economic groups—nearly half—never hear about the opportunities of higher education during their school years. Abandoning such a huge number of potentially talented young people cannot be right. That is why we are funding a range of programmes to widen participation among non-traditional groups of students. Our £190 million excellence challenge will work with children from the age of 13 in excellence in cities areas and education action zones to raise their aspirations.

Adam Price: The Minister has referred to arrangements in Scotland. Is she aware of the Rees report on student finance, which also examined the issue of support for further education students? It suggested introducing a maintenance grant in Wales for further education and higher education students. Will the Government allow diversity to flourish in FE and HE, as they claim to do in other areas?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to note that that is entirely a matter for the Assembly in Wales.
	Let us look at what we are trying to do. We are introducing programmes to do more, with mentoring, out-of-school support and master classes. We are introducing programmes to get universities and further education colleges to do more, with access courses and summer schools. We are also encouraging them to look at how they recruit their students, because we want to tackle the disadvantage faced by children from schools in disadvantaged areas in gaining access to our best universities. We are introducing foundation degrees, which are both relevant to the labour market and attractive to the uncertain student, for whom we hope they will provide a passport to a job.
	We are introducing programmes to encourage universities to change the way in which they work, to form closer links between further and higher education, so that they can give support to students from schools in disadvantaged areas. We are introducing programmes to target support on those for whom the financial burden is the greatest, with our opportunity bursary scheme, our child care support programme, our support for students with dependants and our support for disabled students. All those crucial initiatives should support our objective of widening access.

David Laws: In the light of the review, can the Minister think of a single problem with access to higher education created by the existing system of student finance?

Margaret Hodge: The Government are now reviewing the system of student finance. The hon. Gentleman presses me again on an issue on which I have given endless replies, and which his party is patently not addressing properly. If all his solutions are going to come out of the 1p that his party wants to put on income tax, that 1p will have to stretch a long, long way. I was trying to stress that the issue of widening participation is much more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests, and that if the Liberal Democrats will not address that wider agenda they will fail to achieve the basic purpose of a student funding system, or anything else.

Caroline Flint: One of the issues that I believe affects participation is the visual aspect of having a university within a community. Has any research been carried out into whether the location of a university in a deprived area has an impact on the community, not necessarily in terms of young people going to the university on their doorstep, but of their at least thinking about universities elsewhere? In South Yorkshire, I believe that there is a case for building on the great higher education developments that we have achieved and having a university in Doncaster.

Margaret Hodge: As we widen participation, no doubt we shall want to extend access for students right across the country.
	I strongly believe that if we can get more young children to go into a university at a young age, just to get a feel of what life there would be like, it would be one way of raising their aspirations. We shall experiment with that through our excellence challenge programme.
	I turn to the way in which we are monitoring and evaluating our student funding reforms. The principle that the beneficiaries should contribute to the cost of higher education was right when we introduced the reforms and it remains right now. Having said that, it is worth remembering that not all full-time undergraduates pay a contribution to their tuition fees. Fully half of those students have all their fees paid by the taxpayer, and only one third pay the full fee. We must also remember that the fee covers only about a quarter of the full cost of providing tuition.
	I accept that some real issues have emerged from the reform. The system is extremely complex and difficult to understand. There are concerns about the up-front payment of a fee. There is some evidence, although it is not extensive, that debt and the perception of debt are deterring people from lower-income backgrounds from going to university and might be having an impact on students staying the course once they get to university. We have established the review of student funding to examine these issues.
	We are, quite sensibly, working across government to look at whether we have got the balance right, and properly profiled, between contributions from the student, their family and the state. The review is now in place, but at this stage it would obviously be absurd to speculate on the outcome. Nothing has been ruled in or ruled out.
	What is clear is our aim. For too long, access to higher education has been a privilege for the few. We are determined to make access an opportunity for the many, because it is socially just and economically sensible. At the same time, we want to nurture and enhance the excellence that exists in so many of our universities—an excellence that enhances our productivity agenda, enriches our lives and strengthens our communities. Our ambitions for higher education reflect our ambitions for Britain: delivering on those ambitions is the task that we face in our team. That is precisely what we are doing.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on student financing. The debate was ably begun by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I am not quite sure how many Liberal Democrat education spokesmen are present. I can count two or three. We are having a short debate, which may be shorter because I am not sure how many Liberal Democrat Members wish to speak. It would be strange if few did speak. We will wait to see how many catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is a great pleasure to shadow the Minister for Lifelong Learning, whose work I observed when she was Minister with responsibility for disabled people during the previous Parliament. Where she is working genuinely to expand opportunities for young people, to encourage and to inspire them to achieve more, she will find me a friend and colleague. Many of those aspirations are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I shall look critically at some of the things that she does, one or two of which may come up during my remarks. I am not sure whether the rosy picture that she paints, particularly of the university sector, would necessarily be accepted in every campus, but perhaps we can come to some of the details later.
	Conservative Members welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on student finance. Our record on higher education is strong. It was a Conservative Government who between 1979 and 1997 drove forward wider access to higher education: from one in eight to one in three of the population—no quota, no fuss, just progress. Nor was that expansion confined to an elite of traditionally higher educated families. The number of school leavers from poorer families entering higher education roughly doubled in the 10 years to 1997, although sadly, as the Minister pointed out, it has remained somewhat static since. UCAS figures quoted in a recent Select Committee report on access show that the number of students in higher education from less well-off backgrounds fell between 1997 and 1999.
	Kenneth Baker, now Lord Baker of Dorking, whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I was proud to be, ended the divide between polytechnics and universities, recognising the thrust and energy in the poly sector. He was one of the first to appreciate the need to match wider access to a change in student funding, realising that a redrawing of the balance between student and taxpayer had to take place. That debate was not easy. It remains a difficult area for politicians, in which the easy answer is not likely to be a serious one, but I will come back to the Liberal Democrats in a moment.
	Let us be in no doubt why we are here. The Government's review of student finance—the prompt for today's debate and the first U-turn of the new Parliament—has an undistinguished parentage. The first promise reneged upon, at the very beginning of the previous Parliament in 1997, was that by Labour politicians not to introduce tuition fees. The Prime Minister, the title we used to know him by before he was elevated beyond normal politics, had said clearly during the election campaign that
	"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees".
	Within months, that promise to students, their parents and families was conveniently forgotten.
	Both arrogance and complacency, with which the country is becoming wearily familiar, characterised the next announcement, which was to reject almost out of hand and extremely rapidly the conclusions of the Dearing committee. To remind the House, Dearing recommended the continuation of means-tested grants in order to ease access for students from a low-income background, and recommended against the introduction of means-tested fees. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), chose to do the opposite to Dearing in both cases. Replying to an Opposition day debate on 4 November 1997, he claimed that he was offering not Dearing but "Dearing-plus". It is now clear what the plus means—increased hardship, increased debt, less access and more dropout. Accordingly, the essence of the Government's embarrassment, which we have already witnessed today, is that the crisis in student finance is almost entirely of their own making, born of deception, clothed in presumption but now sunk by their own failings.
	That is not the only crisis in the sector, to remind the Minister of things that she may have forgotten while she was at the Dispatch Box. Universities acknowledge the impact that the crisis in student finance has on access and retention, but they have concerns in other directions. They are irked at being required to succumb to greater and greater regulation—it is estimated that quality assessment alone costs some £250 million—while expecting less and less financial support from Government. They are worried about a crisis in their own funding. They estimate that a gap now exists of some £900 million a year in respect of delivering as they would wish on their students' expectations. They are worried about the demographics of their teaching staff, which foresee them being remarkably short of lecturers in a handful of years. They are worried about recruiting their replacements and attracting students to do PhDs.
	The crisis in student funding may not be the only one, but it has the most immediate impact on students of all ages and their families. If it was unexpected by the current Home Secretary and his party in 1997, it was not unexpected by others. It was not long before evidence of it began to accumulate. The Select Committee on Education and Employment published two reports earlier this year examining higher education: on access and on student retention. In both, student finance came under scrutiny, resulting from the growing perception that not only fear of debt but real hardship beyond the usual tolerance long experienced by students were having an influence on choices and destinations.
	Professor Claire Callender co-authored a report for the DFEE entitled "Changing Student Finance" that was published in December 2000. She said that certain groups of students experienced severe financial hardship and her report found that one in 10 of full and part-time students had thought about dropping out for financial reasons.
	Professor Diana Green of Sheffield Hallam university told the Select Committee that the number of student exclusions for debt had risen by 17 per cent. between 1997 and 1999. The NUS student hardship survey in 1999 showed that up to a third of full-time students had considered dropping out of studies at least occasionally.

Margaret Hodge: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have the second best retention rate of students among all OECD comparator countries? Does he further accept that there has been no change in our position since the introduction of the reforms in student support?

Alistair Burt: My point is that we want to preserve and protect our very good retention rate. The evidence to the Select Committee shows that the Government's student financing package is putting that at risk. Even if the figures have not yet started to drop away, my quotations from those who are close to students show that it is a real danger. They are starting to see evidence of exactly what the Minister fears.

Joan Ryan: I am astonished to hear that. I understand that since 1993 participation of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds has remained pretty constant at 26 per cent. Perhaps one reason why it has not improved is the fact that the Conservatives cut funding per student by 36 per cent. We are trying to regain that position and improve it.

Alistair Burt: I have two points in answer to the hon. Lady's comments. First, as I said earlier, the number of school leavers from poorer families entering higher education approximately doubled in the 10 years to 1997, which include the years that she mentioned. That information is from table 1.1 on page 6 of the Dearing report. Secondly, the hon. Lady referred to the change in unit funding. She is quite correct, but unit funding was going down as the number of people in higher education increased considerably, at no loss of quality whatever, as the Dearing report commented.
	We want more people to experience good-quality higher education. That was the record of the Conservative party when it left office.

Margaret Hodge: The key figure is not the number, but the proportion of young people from lower socio- economic backgrounds who enter higher education. That has not changed. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the mortgage-style loan scheme introduced by the Conservative Government was less inhibiting of students from lower income groups than ours, which is entirely income contingent?

Alistair Burt: I did not say that we are content with the proportion of those from non-traditional backgrounds who enter higher education now. However, we did change it and the numbers were increasing under the Conservative Government. The rapid stop appears to have come round about 1997. Therefore, I am simply asking the hon. Lady to acknowledge that, just possibly, it might have something to do with the new financing arrangements that she introduced.

David Chaytor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. Given the Conservative party's new-found concern about increasing participation in higher education—[Interruption.] In the period 1992–97 when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were responsible for the system, I was one of those responsible for making it work, and our recollection of what happened is not quite the same as his. Does he not share the Government's target of 50 per cent. of young people going into higher education by 2010?

Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who, as the House knows, took my seat in 1997, but who has subsequently made some kind remarks about me, both in the House and outside, which I much appreciate. He certainly knows his education, too. I am a little disturbed that he should say that our appreciation of people going into higher education is newly found. I will not restate the figures yet again, but my point is that things improved markedly when we were in office, and the present Government should seek to continue that progress.
	On targets, I have already said that we improved from one in eight to one in three, without quota, without target. The Minister's aspiration is much narrower: to go from one in three to one in two. I am a little puzzled about what might constitute higher education, following the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday in the Education and Skills Committee. She is reported to have said that one may not need a degree to qualify for what she called the "higher education experience", but that all would become clear. I do not know what criteria the Government will use to meet the target: taking a degree, visiting the university for a course, or driving past on a wet Tuesday afternoon. When we know that, perhaps we can talk figures.

Margaret Hodge: There is no change in the calculations. The Conservative Government also used to count a whole range of qualifications at sub-degree level—HNDs, HNCs—and we have the new foundation degrees, but we will not double-count, as the Conservatives did.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for that clarification. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
	"The nature of higher education has changed and I think people will go there at different parts of their lives to access that."
	That is good. She continued:
	"One of the things we are doing at the moment is looking at the length of courses and qualifications, at the out-turn.
	When we've worked that out with the sector, we will want to tell you as well."
	When asked how the Government would define the target as being met, she replied:
	"It will be based on a good quality higher education experience".
	That is what has puzzled people, but no doubt we will find out in due course precisely what she meant.
	The impact of not completing a course of study is high. Least important, we all may think, is the financial cost, which some estimate to be about £200 million a year. Of greater significance, as we would all agree, is the cost in self-esteem to the undergraduate, who will have struggled to reach university, sometimes overcoming substantial obstacles in life, only to have to deal with a particular form of rejection.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on one of the most crucial issues, which is dropout. In the United Kingdom, uniquely, we do not credit students for what they have achieved. For students to be able to go through the system and gain their qualifications should be an aspiration for us all. Does he agree that, rather than talking about dropouts, we should regard people as having taken one step on the ladder towards achieving their degree or other success? I welcome him to his post.

Alistair Burt: That is kind of the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I agree. I have read the debate that is taking place about what may constitute a credit for the degree or period of study, and I know that there is some concern about the current system. We need to find a new arrangement. I hope to explore that in my discussions with universities over the next few months.
	The rejection felt when a course is not completed can be communicated to others, rebuilding barriers to education that we all want to dismantle. For every person who has failed to graduate as a result of Labour's failure to understand the problem, the Labour promise of a better tomorrow has, sadly, been broken.

Charlotte Atkins: Do not dropouts frequently occur for reasons other than student finance: for example, choosing the wrong course or not getting the right quality of teaching? I was a member of the Committee that produced the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Students told us that their main concern—although of course they were concerned about finance, as I was when I was a student—was the quality of teaching. We are doing a lot to improve that by putting extra investment into universities.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady is correct: several factors may contribute to a student failing to complete a course. I am strongly of the opinion—as I know is the Minister—that more information needs to be provided by schools for those who enter at that stage. I have cited the quotations from those close to universities because I wish to query the impact of the new financial arrangements on the decisions that students make on whether to complete a course. The changed nature of the financial circumstances since 1997 has led to the fears that university representatives—and students—have mentioned.
	Universities UK told the Committee that perceptions of debt are critical to students' decisions to enter and remain in higher education, especially for students from poorer backgrounds and those without a tradition of higher education in their families. It seems common sense that the level of debt, rather than the simple existence of any sum owing, must be the crucial factor in perception of debt as it applies to access to higher education. Therein lies the biggest error in the Government's calculations. Professing an aim to widen access not only to bring more students into higher education but to ensure that they came from a wider social spectrum, the Government hit unerringly on the single most likely barrier to those students' entry. Families for whom significant debt had often meant real hardship and fear had little likelihood of coming to terms with the new arrangements, when all too often there was confusion about the precise financial repayment arrangements.
	In the midst of the evidence that was building up from universities and others, Ministers either did not know what was going on or could not easily admit that they had got it wrong. In February 2001, Baroness Blackstone, then Minister with responsibility for higher education, told the Committee:
	"I know of no evidence to suggest that more students have dropped out as a result of the changes in the student support system that we have introduced."
	One wonders where the noble Lady was looking, because the evidence was all around her. The signature dish of this Government is high-handed arrogance and bare-faced denial of error. In those few words of Baroness Blackstone, it was set before us again.
	In contrast, the signature dish of the Liberal Democrats is promising the earth in the knowledge that they will not inherit it. In this debate, they have taken full advantage of the fact that nobody ever bothers to ask where they would find the money to fund their policies. A hefty price tag is certainly attached to the measures advocated by the hon. Member for Newbury. A reply to a written question has shown, for example, that the abolition of tuition fees would cost the Exchequer some £270 million every year, even before the cost of restoring maintenance grants.
	There is a proper debate to be had about the balance of contributions between the state and the student in further and higher education. However, it must be an honest debate. It is wrong to give students the impression that all their problems could be solved without talking about finance or through the now infamous 1p on income tax, about which we have heard so often.

John Pugh: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Scotland, where tuition fees have been abolished, finance has been put in place to accommodate that change? Therefore, our proposal is financially solid and not unrealistic.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difference between the jurisdictions in Scotland and England. It is not all roses in Scotland, because the threshold at which students begin paying the graduate tax is low—about £10,000—and the package of reforms introduced as a result of Cubie involved the reduction of loan entitlement for many students while they were studying, leading to greater hardship. Whatever the financing arrangements in Scotland, they do not begin to equate to the number of students in the rest of the country and we have heard nothing about financing from the Liberal Democrats today.

Andrew Turner: Is not it astonishing that the Liberal Democrats can talk about this issue without saying where they will get the money, secure in the knowledge that the Scottish arrangements discriminate against English students? Those arrangements discriminate against students from the Isle of Wight, while taxpayers from the Isle of Wight and other parts of England pay for Scottish students to get a better deal—because of the Liberal Democrats.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well.

David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman challenged me on the point that we did not raise the financial issue. It is clear that, in practice, we have managed to make the new arrangements in Scotland work, in agreement with the Labour party, without resorting to any increase in income tax. In our last manifesto, we allocated a small part of the extra £3 billion that would be raised by a penny on income tax to the abolition of tuition fees. The figure that the hon. Gentleman himself has given demonstrates that only a small part of the £3 billion would be needed.

Alistair Burt: Do you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, a wonderful game some years ago in which a child would ask a magic robot questions and it moved around to point at the answer? One might try to confuse it, but the magic robot always spun round to give the answer. I suspect that, upstairs in the Liberal Democrats' room, there is a magic robot and they ask it a different question every time. "How can we pay for improvements to the health service?" Unerringly, the magic robot replies, "A penny on income tax." "How can we pay for improvements to schools?" "A penny on income tax." "How do we pay for improvements to our universities?" "A penny on income tax." The remarkable way in which that one penny can be used so many times pays great testament to the number of times that the Liberal Democrats must play that game upstairs in their room.

David Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Burt: No, I must make some progress.
	It is vital that, as far as possible, we draw on the knowledge and expertise of those involved in higher education when we start to make decisions on changes to student finance. For that reason, I was particularly surprised that the Secretary of State said that she was reviewing the policy purely internally. She has disappeared back to the Department to produce another system devised by the same people who created the one about which we are all complaining.
	I read this morning in The Guardian—my newspaper of choice—a number of things that No. 10 and the Treasury are concocting to foist upon the Department. I appreciate that the Minister will not comment on unsubstantiated newspaper stories, but this one has worried us all and has the ring of truth about it. We will look carefully at what comes out of the review, but it is disappointing that the public's participation in the Government's review of student financing is through the pages of the newspapers, rather than through a more open process.
	That will not be the Conservative way. Over the coming months and years, we will go out and talk to organisations such as the National Union of Students, the Association of Colleges, Universities UK and others, and we will draw on the experiences of university vice- chancellors, lecturers and students. We will listen to the views of the people who matter in our universities and FE institutions.
	Certain core principles will inform our policy-making process. First, we agree with bodies such as Universities UK that there is a real need to ensure that any system of student support focuses on those potential students from less well-off backgrounds. It is vital that we make a university education a realistic goal for every talented young person. It is also vital that young people from less well-off backgrounds are reassured that the financial cost of getting a degree does not put that beyond their reach. Access must not be prevented by cost.
	Secondly, any additional provision for students must not come at the expense of university funding. There is a real funding crisis in our universities and they cannot be expected to bear the additional burden of bailing out the Government on student support. The Government must look at ways of giving universities more freedom and allowing them greater scope to harness funds from the private sector. Development must be helped and not hindered by any state involvement.
	Finally, it is vital when looking at the entire sector that we do not become focused on higher education to the detriment of further education. The FE sector provides the kind of education that young people and employers want. Some of the more exciting and innovative courses, particularly vocational courses, are being offered by FE students. We must not allow FE to be squeezed out by the university sector, and the current crisis in teaching and recruitment—as revealed in this week's survey by the Association of Colleges—suggests another fine mess for the Minister to uncover to add to her burdens.
	In entering post-school education, whether straight from school or later, prospective students deserve the fullest knowledge of what courses are available. They need to know where and how good the courses are, the true value of the qualifications and what society thinks of them, what financial support is available, and when that support needs to be repaid. In that way, they will make their choices on the basis of what is right and appropriate for them in a culture where there is parity of esteem between the vocational and the academic, and where their choice of course, place and sector will enable them to reach their highest potential and not simply to fulfil Government quota or the financial necessity of an institution.
	The House knows that, with the best of intentions, any Government can go wrong. The alarms could not have been ringing louder in higher education over the past few years. The Government have ignored too many of them, at the cost of misery and disappointment to students and their families. It is time to listen and maybe—just maybe—to say sorry. 2.36 pm

David Chaytor: I am in two minds about the debate. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have chosen this subject. The motion includes the important reference to student support outside higher education, although it is unfortunate that the focus so far has been almost entirely on the university sector. However, the issue has been presented in a way that exemplifies the worst forms of Liberal Democrat opportunism and hypocrisy. As long as Liberal Democrat Members continue to argue that there should be a massive expansion in the money available for student support without committing themselves in their spending plans to finding that money, the party's credibility will be zero.
	Earlier, I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) the Liberal Democrats' latest use of their proposed 1p increase in income tax. The Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to a radical increase in support for students in higher education, and the motion implicitly commits the party to some sort of expansion in support for students in further education. However, my hon. Friend told me that as recently as Friday the Liberal Democrat social services spokesman put in a bid for the 1p on income tax to fund in full the cost of residential social care.
	Where will all the money come from? I have to agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that the proposition is no longer credible.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the commitment given by the partnership Government in Wales to £40 million in education maintenance bursaries and financial contingency benefits next year is opportunism, or that it will benefit Welsh young people from poorer homes by giving them the opportunity to enter further or higher education?

David Chaytor: I welcome that commitment, although I am not familiar with the details. The hon. Gentleman had to consult his notes as he asked the question, which suggests that he is not entirely familiar with them either. However, we are talking about a comprehensive programme of reform of student finance, which must apply to students aged 16 and upwards. Whatever proposals the Government make will be funded, so whatever proposals other parties make must also be funded. The experience of the five years since 1997 is that the other parties will not say how that funding will be managed. Liberal Democrat Members believe that, one day, their party will be the second party in the House. I very much hope that that might happen, but I suspect that it will not as long as the Liberal Democrat party continues to promise the earth without putting its money where its mouth is.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows that I normally have great respect for what he has to say, but will he accept that we provided the British electorate with a costed list of all our proposals at the last election? If he does accept that, will he apologise to Liberal Democrat Members for his scurrilous remarks about uncosted proposals?

David Chaytor: What the Liberal Democrats are arguing for now is not what they were arguing for on 7 June. If the hon. Gentleman gives me a revised version of the costed proposals, I may reconsider my remarks. [Interruption.] Their position shifts as the months go by.

John Pugh: If there is a clear distinction, will the hon. Gentleman explain in what respect it exists? Will he give us figures and details? He cannot simply allege that there is one.

David Chaytor: The Liberal Democrats originally supported the Government's recommendations on reforming student support. Their only point of difference was on student fees, and they fought the election on the abolition of such fees. As the months go by, they are gradually shifting their position and calling for a more radical transformation of student finance. I am in favour of a radical transformation of student finance, but I am prepared to argue for it, as are the Government, only when the money goes with it.
	There is no doubt that the Government's move in the last Parliament to grasp the nettle of student finance in the United Kingdom was brave and courageous. With the abolition of mortgage interest tax relief and the reform of company car taxation, the Government showed enormous courage in tackling the central planks of what is traditionally called the middle-class welfare state. They deserve credit for introducing their important policies to extend and redistribute opportunities for people in the United Kingdom.
	A number of parents and students have written to me and visited me in my surgery over the past four and a half years, and although there is concern about the level of debt in which some students find themselves, I have also detected a complete understanding of the importance of the general principle that those who benefit from a university education ought to contribute to it. I am not surprised at the comparatively low level of objection to the fundamentals of the system.

Adam Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, a fellow socialist, that the easiest way to enact that principle would be through a progressive system of income tax?

David Chaytor: There are many ways of enacting that principle. One difficulty with progressive income tax is that those who ought to have the greatest liability for income tax find it the easiest to avoid. There are deficiencies in an income tax system, however progressive it may be on paper.
	There are many ways whereby the system can become more progressive and fairer and reduce yet further the barriers to participation that many young people experience. I am sure that the Government will explore all of them. I completely support what they have done. It is important that in the review we do not abandon the central principle that those who gain the benefit contribute their fair share.
	We should focus on the details of the system. It is true that the perception of tuition fees has been a problem. However, 50 per cent. of university students do not pay tuition fees, and 15 per cent. pay only a part fee. That is not widely understood, so one of the details that needs to come out of the review is better communication regarding eligibility for tuition fees.
	I find it incredible that people recommend abandoning the tuition fee. I cannot see how anyone who is concerned about equality and redistribution of opportunity in education can justify a system whereby every group of post-18-year-old students has to pay a tuition fee for their course, or is eligible to do so, whereas full-time undergraduates—the group that has the greatest benefit from their education—are not eligible. If young people who achieved zero GCSEs at school go to night school at 19 or 20 to improve themselves, they pay a tuition fee. If people in their 30s or 40s who work full time or look after a family do an Open university degree, they pay a tuition fee. How can it possibly be right that undergraduates, who, to have got where they are, have by definition had the greatest benefit from, and the highest investment in, their primary and secondary education, should not pay tuition fees?
	That is the key principle behind the payment—or rather, the contribution to the payment. Let us remember that the £1,075—I think that that is right; I have just written the cheque for my youngest daughter, who is starting her second year at university—represents about 25 per cent. of the average cost of providing the course, so we are not asking people to pay the full fee.
	Let us focus on the details in the review—information for parents, for example. The Government have taken heroic steps to mitigate some of the potential problems and perceptions among young people going to university for the first time; have introduced all kinds of new systems of support—for child care and transport, for instance—and have expanded the access funds in universities. There is now a plethora of additional forms of support. There is too much confusion and not enough information about the various special schemes that have been introduced.
	The system needs reforming and streamlining, so that any additional support that may come through can be focused on the needs of those whom we loosely term non-traditional students, or students from working-class backgrounds. The key criterion, surely, is that a student has non-graduate parents, and is the first to go to university in his or her family. That is the barrier that we have to break through. The prospect of someone whose parents did not go to university going to university themselves is far less likely than for those with graduate parents. I therefore hope that, in addition to better communication about the realities of the system of support, there will be clarification and streamlining of the various forms of support that already exist.
	I have praised the Liberal Democrats for including in their motion a reference to the support of post-16s in further education. The Government, and possibly the Welsh Assembly, are to be congratulated on having taken steps towards a form of education maintenance allowance for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have pilot schemes in the United Kingdom, and the evidence is variable, but by and large the schemes work and achieve participation.
	We know that rolling out education maintenance allowances nationally will be hugely expensive, but I urge the Government to think carefully and not to back off from a national scheme of support for 16 to 19-year-olds. As was said earlier, one of the key factors in participation is not so much the cost of going to university, so long as the cost is reasonable and students perceive that the higher earnings in their subsequent careers will cover the initial costs. The key factor is not having the right qualifications at the age of 16 or 18.

Caroline Flint: The education maintenance allowances in Doncaster have had a profound effect in the short time that they have been operational; staying-on rates have increased by 6 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that despite the financial issues that they raise, EMAs are a crucial way in which to roll out the programme to encourage more young people to stay on, and give them the chance to achieve the qualifications to get into university.

David Chaytor: I am delighted to hear that. I only wish that we had EMAs in my constituency. They have them in Rochdale, Bolton, Manchester and Salford. Indeed, one of the problems with the pilot schemes is that we now find that students taking the same course at the same college are funded in different ways.
	If we are to roll out EMAs nationally, we must consider the relationship with child benefit. The Government deserve enormous credit for grasping the nettle of reforming student finance in the last Parliament, and there is perhaps an even pricklier nettle to be grasped in this Parliament: the relationship between EMAs and child benefit. There are so many anomalies in the way in which our existing welfare state funds 16 to 19-year-olds, in and out of education. I make a plea for the extension of the definition of student financial support away from HE to include FE.
	I also ask for some special consideration for students attending London universities and colleges. Normally, I am wholly opposed to any enhancement of educational investment in London as, by and large, it is at the expense of poorer, northern, metropolitan districts such as mine—[Interruption.]—and those in other parts of the country. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning to early-day motion 308, which I tabled this morning and which refers to London weighting. There is no doubt in my mind that living costs for students in London are far in excess of the current weighting provided in student support. Given that students from all over the country attend London universities, the issue must be tackled.
	I hope that the Government will stick firmly to the principles. I hope that they will listen to the comments made by the Conservatives. I welcome the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—my former adversary—to the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment and hope that he will bring a new approach to the Conservative party and wish him well on his tour of United Kingdom universities to find out what people have to say. He did not say that he was making a European tour to learn from European capitals what should be done to improve public services in Britain. When those Members of the shadow Cabinet who are going to Europe have their interviews with Mr. Jospin and Chancellor Schroder and ask why British public services are often poorer than those in western Europe, the answer will be simple: "We did not have 20 years of Tory Government." That is the obvious message that the shadow Cabinet will receive on their European tour. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire will bring a constructive and reasonable approach to the formulation of Conservative post-16 policy.
	The key point is that we must focus on the detail. We must consider London weighting. We must give better information to parents to get rid of the fear factor—that is urgent. We must streamline the existing additional support schemes so that extra effort is directed towards the needs of poor students, especially those who are going to university for the first time.

Chris Grayling: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. The subject is of great importance and the House should address it. This is the second Opposition day that has been devoted to a discussion of education. That marks the importance attached to education by Members on both sides of the House.
	During the past four years, we have seen the flawed introduction of a new approach to financial support for our students. Even the Secretary of State, in her decision to review the steps taken four years ago and to reconsider the whole system of student finance, has admitted that what was done was not right; that it caused genuine hardship for far too many students; and that, increasingly, it provides a disincentive for students from less well-off backgrounds to enter further education—as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) pointed out. The Government made a wrong decision and I hope that the current review will result in a more workable and acceptable system that is more attractive to would-be students.
	None the less, in choosing this subject for debate, the Liberal Democrats are chasing headlines, while failing to address the real issues relating to student finance. The problem for students, and the one that causes so many financial difficulties, is not tuition fees. To call for the scrapping of tuition fees just makes a cheap headline. It is not tuition fees alone, or even in large measure, that build up debts of between £10,000 and £15,000, but the huge repayment burdens—the burden of cost-of-living expenses built up over a three-year course, or four years in Scotland. That debt burden remains with students through the early years of, and often well into, their professional life. It is that debt burden, far more than tuition fees, that causes the fears that have been discussed.
	Twenty years ago, in the days when we had full grants and when I was a student, it was generally estimated that a student needed a little over £2,000 a year for living expenses in London—about £1,500 elsewhere. Obviously, given the changes in the cost of living, those amounts are hugely greater today, yet it is worth noting that the maximum amount available under the student loan system is only £4,000 a year. Today, students are left with huge debts. We need to address that issue for today's students, not tomorrow's.

Caroline Flint: We could have a huge debate about how student finance should be constructed, but will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that, after the student loans system had been introduced under a Conservative Administration, when Labour came to power in 1997 it introduced ways in which the burden of debt could be paid over a longer period, starting at a higher rate of earnings than was relevant under the Conservative Administration?

Chris Grayling: I am interested in the issue for today's students, and the reality is that, whatever the history of student finance, today's students face a debt burden that is a disincentive and a huge problem for many of them. It is right and proper that the House, the Government and all parties with an interest in the area should be addressing that issue today.
	For that reason, at the general election the Conservative party said that our first priority should be to change the burden on today's students, to make it possible for students leaving education and entering their first jobs not to face a huge burden in their pay packets from day one—and a burden it is. A newly qualified nurse earns £15,355 a year. A newly qualified house officer—a young doctor—earns £17,935 a year. A newly qualified teacher earns a little more than £17,000 a year. Newly qualified social workers and other public servants all earn similar amounts.
	Currently, that newly qualified nurse, on £15,355 a year, must pay £481 a year in repayments from day one. Even if the proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats at the general election were implemented, that nurse would pay more than £200 a year in debt repayments. That is why the Conservative party said, at the general election, that we needed a quantum leap in the threshold for repayments. We should not be looking to young, newly qualified public servants to start paying their debts until they have reached a reasonable salary level and start to have the cash that will enable them to afford those repayments.

Valerie Davey: Did not the manifesto also say that that loan would be repayable at market rates of interest?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady obviously did not read the detail in the manifesto. It said that market rates of interest would be offset by tax allowances that would enable us to securitise the student loan book to provide a significant cash investment in our universities, while ensuring that students paid no more money in repayments. That would have made a huge and real difference to our universities.

Phil Willis: We cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that, because the policy of the previous Government, when they left office, was to sell the student loan portfolio, and the Minister and her colleagues had to pick up that problem. No one would buy it. It is no good saying that the Conservatives would underpin universities with extra resources from a portfolio that no one would buy. It was not commercially attractive to anyone unless it was written down by at least 50 per cent.

Chris Grayling: I think that in today's world one has rather more chance of securitising the student loan book than of encouraging further bondholders in Railtrack.
	We move on to what the Government are proposing. If we are to believe the apparently authoritative leak in The Guardian today, we shall see a return to a maximum grant. However, it will be a maximum grant that will go nowhere near what is needed by today's students to live a life in full-time education. The suggested figure is £2,600 a year. I will be intrigued when the Minister sums up at the end of the debate if she can give us a hint of whether that figure is even in the ball park. If it is, it is profoundly worrying.
	If a poorer student is going to be entitled to a grant that represents a fraction of what is needed to live on, and if the student loan structure is to disappear, what about the rest? Are we saying that students from less well-off backgrounds will have to borrow large amounts from their bank and repay it at much higher rates of interest than the present student loan? The consequences will be serious indeed.
	Professor Alan Smithers of Liverpool university has offered some initial analysis of the report, saying
	"For many students it will be a poor deal as it would actually be better for them to pay the money up front and not to incur debts at market rates of interest . . . It is a very untidy solution and it is hard to see who is going to benefit. The financial consequences for a number of students are going to be quite serious . . . It is an attempt by the Government to put a sticking plaster over a self-inflicted wound."
	When the Minister replies, I hope that she can reassure us that the plans that are being discussed behind the scenes will not impose the potentially enormous financial burden that such an approach could represent for our students.
	At the end of the day, the family will be expected to pay. The Government's view is, and seems always to have been, that a family with an income of £35,000 a year is rich and can well afford to pay tuition fees—to pay a little extra here or support maintenance grants there. In reality, some Ministers have privately admitted that they are placing too many burdens on middle-class families with mortgages and other children to support. The present threshold of £35,000 is not such a vast amount of money that it leaves a huge amount of disposable income to support a student.
	We also hear that there may be a graduate tax, repayable over 25 years. What will be the threshold for the repayment of that tax? Will it apply in full measure to the newly qualified nurse, doctor or teacher I mentioned? Will they start paying in full from day one? If a graduate tax is to be the approach, it should not be structured in a way that will affect the least well off—the newly employed graduate.

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Does he agree that we want to expand the opportunities for most young people, so that they can get the best out of their education? We must recognise that graduates can earn four times as much in their lifetime as someone without a degree. There is no doubt about that fact. Therefore, there is a social justice to a graduate tax—they should pay something back for the benefits that they have gained from their education.

Chris Grayling: At a time when the public services in my constituency and many others are crying out for people and simply cannot get the new entrants they need, it is the height of folly simply to pursue a political dogma, increase the financial burden and make it less easy still for graduates to move into jobs that are less well paid than those in the private sector. We need to deal with the problems of today's students going into today's public services. Trying to expand numbers just to achieve a target while failing to recognise the potential impact on those people would be foolhardy in the extreme.
	Why the rush? The Prime Minister made a speech two or three weeks ago and we are already hearing detailed leaks of what the Government are planning. If they got it wrong four years ago, surely now is the time to step back, think about the matter carefully, talk to the organisations involved, have widespread consultation and then reach a conclusion. They should not cobble something together in three weeks.
	Many hon. Members referred to Liberal Democrat education policy—the magic 1p. I will not attempt to satirise it. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has done a far better job than I ever could. Year after year, election after election, the magic 1p returns, each time with a different spending commitment attached.
	I flicked through the detail of the Liberal Democrat manifesto to see what came under the heading of that 1p this time. There are some startling figures. The range of potential spending commitments is enormous. The one that particularly caught my eye was the commitment to reduce class sizes to 25 pupils, on average, for children aged five to 11—an admirable desire in theory, but if fulfilled would require the construction of the equivalent of 3,000 new primary schools and the hiring of 30,000 new teachers. Schools cannot find teachers to fill today's vacancies, let alone find 30,000 more. The possible capital cost alone of pursuing that policy would gobble up a huge chunk of the magic 1p.

Sue Doughty: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather more realistic to promise improvements in public services and help for students by accepting that taxes may have to rise, than by pretending that they will be cut?

Chris Grayling: A responsible political party should make commitments on a basis that can be substantiated, not on the basis of promising all things to all people all the time, with no genuine financial backing to support them.
	It is also noticeable that little is said about grants and financial support for students in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Tuition fees make the headline-grabbing political point, but the detail of how to tackle the debt burden is important. As I said in citing the example of the small threshold increase for repayments that was included in the manifesto, in reality little has changed in the huge debt burden placed on today's students.

David Rendel: I have a copy of the manifesto here, and the bit on student maintenance is clearly rather longer than the bit on tuition fees.

Chris Grayling: I have given a specific example, taken from the hon. Gentleman's manifesto, involving a newly qualified nurse, to show that a significant repayment burden would still be placed on newly qualified members of staff in a key part of our economy where we desperately need more people. We should not provide disincentives to people to join those professions. The danger is that if we use our student finance system to penalise new entrants to the public services that are crying out for people, we will not get the people needed to populate those public services in the future.
	The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred to what has been done in Scotland, but my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned the Barnett formula. The truth is that while the Barnett formula exists, it will always be possible to do more in Scotland than in the rest of the country, because taxpayers in all other parts of the country—including those in the less well-off areas of the north of England, such as that represented by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—will continue to subsidise taxpayers in Scotland. While the Barnett formula exists, the Administration in Scotland will continue to be able to do things that are not possible in other parts of the country.
	I believe strongly that the magic 1p policy is hugely disingenuous. During the election campaign, I heard a senior member of the Liberal Democrat party say on the radio, "If we could only put 1p extra on income tax and charge a higher rate overall for high earners, we could solve the problems of our public services once and for all." Well, if Liberal Democrats really believe that they are genuinely fit only to be a minor party, that is how they should remain.

Matthew Green: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House which of the three party manifestos was fully costed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies?

Chris Grayling: As I have just said, the hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that proposed a capital programme for schools that could not have been achieved without spending huge sums. That policy is simply not credible.
	The No. 1 priority is to reduce the repayments burden in the early years for today's students. I emphasise the phrase "today's students", because this issue concerns students who are in education today and who will leave with substantial debts in forthcoming summers. We need to find a better way to deal with that in future—not through the rushed review that the Government are carrying out and not through policy made on the hoof at the party conference, but through a long, substantial, real review that delivers a workable solution that will endure, not simply last another four years until people discover that it has not worked either.
	We need to do other things. There are plenty of anomalies in the way in which student finance is handled. A constituent contacted me a few weeks ago to ask, "Why do I have to pay a separate licence fee for the television in my room because the four of us who share the house just happen to have four different tenancy agreements?" Such anomalies in the financial framework surrounding our students must be addressed. We need to deliver the support, get rid of anomalies and find a better way of doing things.
	Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government who expanded participation in higher education from 10 per cent. of young people to more than 30 per cent. Let us also not forget that it was a Labour Government who ended the principle of free higher education for all. 3.10 pm

Kelvin Hopkins: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and to debate with my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning. She kindly invited me—along with one or two colleagues on the Labour Benches—to a private meeting a few weeks ago to discuss these matters, and I put my view to her. I thought that I was alone at that meeting in expressing the dangerously radical view that we needed to reconsider abolishing fees and paying for the restoration of maintenance grants from general taxation.
	I was therefore absolutely delighted when the very next day an apparently well-sourced leak appeared in the newspapers suggesting that the Government were to conduct a review and might restore grants and abolish fees. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how pleased I was about that. I hope that the review will, indeed, come up with such policies. I have no doubt that during the review there will be certain pressures from the Treasury. I shall do everything that I can to support my hon. Friend in her struggles with the Treasury on those matters.
	I was one of 33 Labour Members who opposed the decision three years ago to impose fees and abolish grants. I did that with great reluctance; clearly, rebelling in the Lobby is very difficult and painful for everyone, and it certainly was for me. However, I had a view at that time, which I have held consistently, that the Government's decision was wrong. The fact that we are to have a review shows that the Government have listened, are listening and are going to change their policies, which is very welcome.
	Sadly, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I agree with him on almost everything, but I find him unconvincing on the subject of higher education student finance. However, I hope that we shall always remain friends in other respects.
	Students are often portrayed as fortunate in enjoying the advantage of a university education. Indeed, I had one myself and feel fortunate as a result. However, students forgo several years of employment—certainly three years, often four and sometimes as many as six years, especially if one includes education from the age of 16—and the income that they could derive from that.

Valerie Davey: I happen to have twin daughters, one of whom went to university and one of whom worked. My hon. Friend can imagine the fertile debates in our household as the one in work paid tax in order to pay for her sister at university. Does that seem fair?

Kelvin Hopkins: Provided that taxation is progressive and redistributive, taxation is fair. I should like to think that my hon. Friend's daughter who went to university will pay considerably more tax in her lifetime because she will receive a higher income.

Valerie Davey: They will pay exactly the same.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend disagrees, but the fact is that graduates earn more than non-graduates once they have made the sacrifice in those early years. Financing people through that period so that they can attain qualifications and therefore pay higher taxes later in life that meet the cost of their education is a fair deal.
	Those students are privileged in the sense that, in general, they will have a better life because they have a degree than someone who does not. Of course, that does not apply in all cases. However, students pay higher taxes and they are vital for our economy. We must have well-qualified people throughout our economy; indeed, we are seriously worried about skill shortages. Recruiting people with the right skills and qualifications is proving difficult. Although unemployment is much lower than when the Conservative party was in power, we are suffering from skill shortages that must tackled.
	The Prime Minister was right to suggest that we should increase the number of those who go into higher education to 50 per cent. of the population, because it is good not only for those people but for society and our economy. To achieve that, we must guarantee students financial security while they are in higher education.
	Many people say that it is good for students to work while they are studying. That is not always so. In the past, when only the scions of the upper class went to university, they did not have to work. They were dilettantes, who lived the life of Riley while they were at university. Perhaps they would drop in to the odd lecture and talk to the odd tutor, but, by and large, they drifted through university and into one of the well-paid professions. Doubtless some of them drifted into the House.
	That was the life of the upper class; we now live in a more democratic, egalitarian age when many more people go into higher education. That is essential for them and our economy. We must find ways of supporting students because they do not have the resources that the rich enjoyed in the past. It is right for the state to support them while they are studying.
	We should regard students not as privileged youngsters but people who do a job for themselves and society, which therefore pays them an income while they do that job of studying. If students saw matters in that light, I believe that they would concentrate better on their studies. It is preferable to following the traditions of the dilettante upper class of the 18th century.
	Students who have education maintenance allowances in my local sixth form college show greater diligence and a tendency to turn up to classes more often. They believe that their EMA might be taken away if they do not turn up. All the tutors there strongly favour EMAs because they have encouraged students to work harder and to turn up. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to extend that pilot scheme to the rest of the country. It will cost money, but reap dividends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, if we are to increase participation among post-16 students, we must encourage more marginal students to stay on in education.
	There are many families with non-traditional backgrounds in my constituency. Some are from ethnic minorities and others are from working class backgrounds with no tradition of going into higher education. Remaining in education beyond the age of 16 was perceived as strange. Indeed, when my wife wanted to become a teacher, her father said, "What do you want to do that for? Get out and get yourself a job, love." She persisted, went to teacher training college and became a school teacher, but it was a struggle because she came from a background that was culturally unused to higher education.
	We are overcoming that barrier; more students are staying on, but we remain a long way behind competitor countries. We must make it easier for students from the sort of backgrounds that I have described to go into post-16 education and on to higher education. The 50 per cent. goal will be achieved if we can persuade people to stay on at 16 and undertake pre-university studies.
	We are considering a big issue, which is important for our future. That is recognised on the doorstep. In Luton, North, it was the second biggest issue after the health service, about which everybody was worried. I was surprised that education was the second biggest issue because the number of people in Luton, North who go to university is below average. It is a working-class area and fewer people go to university, but the feeling on the doorstep was strong. That applied to the less well off in some of the council estates and to some of the middle-class areas; people who had previously voted Conservative but swung to Labour perhaps because they had been enlightened in middle age. However, they realised that our traditional approach of state funding for public services was vital for a civilised society. They voted for us on that basis in 1997, and they were a bit shaken when part of it seemed to be taken away in the legislation on grants and fees.
	I said on the doorstep that I felt strongly that we must change that policy, and I am delighted that the Government are now reviewing it. I look forward to the restoration of maintenance grants, the abolition of fees, and the achievement represented by 50 per cent. of students entering higher education.

John Pugh: I pay tribute to the candour and honesty of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I also declare an interest. I have three children at university—who, I hope, are working assiduously even as I speak—and I am very familiar with the telephone requests for extra money and the constant need to reach for the cheque book. My problems, however, are nothing compared with the problems of those on low incomes. Many have testified to that, and the evidence, such as it is, is not contested in any part of the House. We all agree that there is a high drop-out rate, that there is a high cost, and that there is high debt. Those are statistical facts, and statistical facts are not really open to argument.
	What I will say, however, and what I will blame on both Conservatives and Labour and their disastrous systems of student finance, is the radical change that has taken place in the whole atmosphere of universities. The relationship between university and student has changed—the line is often "If you cannot pay on time, get out"—as has the relationship between students and all the other people with whom they have to deal. Imperious demands from landlords are part and parcel of student life, as is working in cafes late at night and working at weekends.
	The Government's policy is an acknowledged disaster. It would have been welcome if the Minister had said "Yes, there are glaring flaws in the system as it stands. Yes, we have established focus groups and spoken to people on the doorstep, and we have found that this is a very unpopular Labour policy". For that is what it is, as research shows. The Minister, however, pretended that things were otherwise. She said that this was part of good practice. She was not altering things because things were wrong; she was simply embarking on a procedure of good practice.
	If that is Government policy, and if good practice means revising each piece of legislation every three years, may I ask what other examples of good practice will be forthcoming? How many other pieces of legislation will be subject to the same treatment? Will every education policy now have a dust-over every three years?

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman speaks of good practice, implying that there is some kind of bad practice. Is he suggesting that it is wrong for students to work in cafes or bars occasionally in the evenings?

John Pugh: I am not suggesting that it is morally wrong. I am suggesting that it imposes an extra burden on them, which they might not need to bear if they were adequately financed. That is, I think, pretty evident.
	Let me be fair to the Minister; I might otherwise be accused of being a little unfair to her. Towards the end of her speech—having delivered the form of words, and said that this was just good practice—she read out a litany of flaws and errors in the current system, to which I listened very carefully. That is something that the Minister can own up to. It is not surprising: Governments make mistakes, and Governments can admit to them. It is also not surprising that there is to be a rethink, which I welcome. As I said, I was grateful for the honesty and candour displayed by the hon. Member for Luton, North. I wish that the Minister would show the same degree of honesty and candour, and I wish that we could agree on a review that would advance the position significantly and produce a better dispensation for students.

Caroline Flint: It has been said that students with low-income parents are worse off than their counterparts. It has always been true that those with better-off parents receive better Christmas presents, and get the backhanders. I spent summers working in a baked-bean factory when I was at university while some of my more affluent fellow students were touring Europe, and I found that hard; but that is life. We must have a fair funding system, but we cannot constantly compensate for inequalities that we face every day. I would like to feel that my experience in the baked-bean factory had stood me in good stead in terms of character building, and understanding how others worked outside the ivory towers of university.

John Pugh: I am not in favour of sending all students off to baked-bean factories. The hon. Lady has identified a fault—a social inequality—and a problem that we have in society. I rather thought, however, that the object of the Labour party was to do something about social inequality.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that working in a baked-bean factory through the summer vacation is an admirable thing to do, but having to work nightly in a bar when one should be studying is a very different matter?

John Pugh: I quite agree; the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head with his usual candour and refreshing insight.
	I do not want to talk at length about the Scottish experience, but whatever has been decided in Scotland will not be followed by this Government. They will do anything but that, basically because they did not think of it themselves. Whatever the Government may say about the Scottish experience, there are three hard facts that I do not think anyone here will dispute. Fact No. 1 is that the take-up of students in Scotland is better than it is in England. That is indisputable.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Pugh: No, I want to make three points, and I will give way after that.
	My second point, to which the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) might also want to respond, is that his colleagues in Scotland voted for the proposals. Unless Labour Members are going to argue that their colleagues in Scotland are either particularly dim or weak willed, it must be the case that their colleagues see some serious merit in that system. The third fact about the Scottish system is that it is financed, because it is impossible in Scotland, as in any corporate or Government body, to set an illegal budget.
	By all means, let us have the rethink. Let us have the review. At the end of the day, the battle might not be between anyone here in the Chamber but between the Minister and the Treasury. That is where the serious aggravation might begin. However, if we are to have a review, and some serious consideration of how things are going—I think we would all be up for that—it would be helpful in clearing the ground if the Government would say to the universities, to the parents and to the students, "Sorry."

Phil Willis: This has been an interesting debate. We have had magic robots and we have had bean factories. What we have not had is the former Conservative Front Bench, which resembled "The Magic Roundabout"; all of its members jumped off at the last election when the Prime Minister said, "It's time for bed."

Nigel Jones: Boing!

Phil Willis: Thank you for the sound effect.
	I am delighted to see that the House has been so consumed by the Liberal Democrats' election manifesto. It is quite rewarding that people have taken it to their hearts, and that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) actually takes it to bed with him and reads it in such detail that he can memorise so much of it.
	The debate affects every Member's constituents, irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom they represent. Those of us who represent English constituencies sense that we have been left out of any real debate about student finance over the past two years. Whatever we might think about what has happened in Scotland, the reality is that the devolved Scottish Parliament grasped a fundamental issue and dealt with it. Whether MSPs dealt with it rightly or wrongly is clearly a matter for them and not for this House.
	It was interesting to see Conservative Members display the politics of envy about the Barnett formula. If the Conservatives' new policy is to abolish the Barnett formula, they ought to tell their friends in Scotland, who would find it very difficult to determine their policy in those circumstances.
	I thank the Minister for the candid way in which she exposed the real inequities experienced by students from poorer backgrounds when they try to get into our universities. It is refreshing to hear a Minister expose the real problem in detail, and Barking is clearly no different from many other parts of the country, especially areas such as Leeds and parts of the north-east where I worked as a teacher.
	What emerged from the debate was the sad fact that, unless we tackle the issue of post-16 youngsters staying on at school or college, we shall have this debate in 10 years' time and nothing will have changed at all. It was therefore incredibly sad when on 13 October the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council launched an appalling attack on standards in FE colleges on the "Today" programme. He said that 40 per cent. of their work was poor and that 5 per cent. was appalling.
	That statement undermined every further education facility and sixth form college in Britain. How can we possibly expect to encourage young people to go into forms of education other than school when the chief executive makes such comments? If nothing else comes out of the debate, I hope the Minister will do all she can to take the chief executive to one side and make it clear to him that he owes every FE college in the country, other than those that have been inspected, an apology. Only five colleges were inspected, and that was the basis on which he made his remarks. I hope that, in her usual candid way, the Minister will respond to that directly in her winding-up speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made a powerful and convincing case, as did other Members, about the effects of student support arrangements following the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. There is no doubt that the level of student debt and poverty is beginning seriously to damage not only participation but the fabric of our university system.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in his first Front-Bench speech since he was outed by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), made a measured and well-researched contribution.

David Chaytor: I think that the word the hon. Gentleman was looking for was ousted, not outed.

Phil Willis: I should choose my words carefully. I apologise profusely if I got the hon. Member's orientation wrong.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoiled his contribution by making an unresearched attack on Liberal Democrat policies, especially costings. He may deride the fact that we went into a general election with a costed manifesto, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies examined it and made it clear that every costing stood up to scrutiny. It was disingenuous of him and other Conservative Members to attack the cost of our policies when the Conservatives went into the general election without a costed manifesto, but with a commitment to cut public expenditure by £20 billion. That is the declared objective of the new leader of the Conservative party: in time, the Conservatives want to cut public expenditure. There has to be some honesty about the way in which the new Conservative Front Benchers tackle student debt and poverty.
	In his passionate defence of further education, as ever, the hon. Member for Bury, North spoke a lot of sense. We will disagree about tuition fees. He has always held that position; we have always held a principled view and will continue to do so.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) hit the nail on the head: it is investment that is needed, and the most effective and fairest way to provide it is through a direct tax system.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made an uncharacteristic intervention. She said that those who do not go to university do not benefit from those who do. That is wrong. We all benefit from the skills of people who go to university, irrespective of whether we have had that opportunity ourselves.

Valerie Davey: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman recalling my comment and I would like to clarify what I said. It has to be recognised that those who do not go to university pay tax, to the advantage of those who do. I said not that people at university have all the benefit, but that the contribution to our society of people who are working should be recognised, as the tax they pay benefits those at university.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Luton, North answered that point. First, graduates pay significant additional taxation throughout their lives and, secondly, the whole of society benefits from graduates.
	I should also mention the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who demonstrated a real commitment to resolving the issue. I was interested in the way in which he pursued the Tory party's proposal to raise the threshold immediately. Perhaps the financial ramifications of that proposal should be made clear. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the costings calculated by the House of Commons Library show that a medical graduate leaving university with a debt of £27,000 would have a debt of more than £50,000 after five years. I am sure that was not what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
	The debate has shown that the House is committed to resolving the problems—Liberal Democrats certainly are. That contrasts with the uncharacteristically puerile remark by the Secretary of State to the vice-chancellors on 22 October. She said:
	"Universities are not a birthright for the middle classes . . . Richer kids are not brighter than poorer kids."
	That is a disingenuous statement. It is not an either/or situation. We are not fighting a class war over whether some kids should go to university and others should not. We want a meritocracy in which everyone, including students from poorer backgrounds, has the chance to go to university.
	The facts speak for themselves. The Government, like their predecessors, have failed to attract students from poorer backgrounds to university. The significant difference is that the present Government admit it. Between 1994 and 1999 only 870 additional students from the lower socio-economic group went to university. The fact that we have been unable to break down that barrier is a huge slur on our education system and our society.
	In Labour's first two years in office, the number of students from poorer backgrounds declined. I believe that that was a direct response to the 1998 Act and the furore over student finance.
	Other factors also affect poorer students, most of whom go to local universities, which inevitably are cheaper. That is wrong: students should be able to choose the course that is right for them at the university that is right for them. They should not always have to consider the local option. UCAS statistics show that students from more affluent backgrounds are prepared to travel an average of 82 miles to university, whereas those from poorer backgrounds travel an average of 42 miles. An analysis of the mosaic database reveals that students from poorer backgrounds tend to apply for low-cost courses—those that do not require a large supplementary income.
	Medical students are a special problem because they cannot earn additional income. The point about whether it is good for students to go to work is academic for medical students, because most of them are on their course for 50 weeks a year. They cannot exist at university without huge parental support. The sad fact is that 80 per cent. of all medical students are from the top two socio-economic groups, and virtually none from the poorer groups. That is not right and we need to tackle it.
	A recent analysis of the funding of medical students shows that 48 per cent. of those who come from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds receive no parental support at all. People cannot exist at medical school without significant extra support. Once the loans have run out, where do they go?
	The Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire laughed at the work done in Scotland and the post-Cubie arrangement. I found that, and the response to the Reece report, rather sad. Not once in the debate did the Minister cite any of the research undertaken in Scotland following Cubie or Pamela Reece's research in Wales. We achieved a coalition with our colleagues in Scotland to do something about student finance. We achieved consensus when the Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, and the late Donald Dewar buried the hatchet and reached a compromise. The blind obstinacy of a Government who say that Andrew Cubie's findings and the Reece inquiry have no part to play is staggering.
	Now there is to be a review. Interestingly, it was announced on a fringe of the Labour party conference. It was not announced to the House, there is nothing in the Library about it and no hon. Member knows any details. What are its terms? Can any of us become involved? Can we present evidence? Surely we all have a part to play.
	We know that the hon. Member for Luton, North is a key player, because he has influenced the review. How long will it take? The papers say that it might conclude in December or January. Will Parliament have a say? Will there be a debate? Will the Education and Skills Committee be asked to undertake an inquiry? Ministers are asked to speak to the Committee but it is not currently undertaking any inquiries. Surely there is an opportunity there.
	No doubt when Conor Ryan and Andrew Adonis decide the outcome and report to No. 10, the details will be revealed to the House—sorry, I mean to the "Today" programme or The Guardian, which today informs us that the matter has already been resolved. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have had a meeting with their political advisers, to which the Minister and the Secretary of State were not invited—and neither were you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and suddenly The Guardian is called in and, in order to trump us, all is revealed on the day of the Liberal Democrat debate on student finance.
	What is the truth? Is the story in The Guardian today absolute nonsense? Is it true that the Secretary of State's plan for a grant and a graduate tax for everybody was her preferred option, but that it has been kicked into touch?
	What a way to run a review. It was announced at the Labour party conference, but there has been no debate in the House on a matter of such importance and with such a consensus of view. The policy for the whole country has been decided by a little coterie of friends late at night at No. 10 and then leaked to The Guardian. Do the Government ever learn? The Secretary of State told me that it was pointless to speculate about specifics, but The Guardian has revealed the whole policy for the next 15 or 20 years.
	We will sign up to the principle that students have to pay for part of their stay at university. In fact, in 1995 at our party conference in Nottingham, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) ensured that it became party policy that students had to make some repayment because they benefit from that education, as do employers and the state. That remains our position. We accept that students should make a significant contribution to maintenance costs. That is what Cubie said, and we do not have a problem with it, but we will not compromise on our principles about tuition fees.
	The state invests in its people through the tuition fees. If the state is not prepared to do that, the Government cannot be serious about creating a knowledge economy. We have to make that investment, and that is our bottom line. This debate has revealed a consensus in the House to make progress. We will willingly take part in the Government's review: will they have us?

Margaret Hodge: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the debate.
	We have had an interesting debate and some hon. Members have chosen to address some of the real challenges that we face in developing a strategy and policy to meet our ambitious targets for higher education. The debate was initiated by the Opposition—

Alistair Burt: It is not an Opposition debate: it is a Liberal Democrat debate.

Margaret Hodge: They are both the same. Either way, we do not have much to learn from the their contributions today or from their actions outside the House. I remind the House, for example, that the Conservatives slashed the unit funding by 36 per cent., put a cap on student numbers and starved our institutions of the money that they needed to retain their global status.
	The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, do not have a clue. The infinite elasticity of their 1p on tax is the stuff that dreams are made of. For example, they have responded to every plea on higher education. They would abolish fees, restore grants for poor students, and open access to benefits for students in the holidays—[Hon. Members: "No."] I have read it all in Liberal Democrat manifestos and other documents. They would raise the threshold for repaying loans, put up salaries in higher education institutions, give universities more money for taking working-class children, give more money to universities for every student that they take, solve the equal pay issue in higher education, extend generous student support to part-time students and bring in student support for all students in further education. Then the Liberal Democrats would spend the change from the extra 1p tax by cutting class sizes, recruiting more teachers and spending more on equipment for our schools. Who do they think they are kidding?
	I welcome the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) to his post and I look forward to engaging in debates with him. As I understand it, he will consult on subsidies for poor students by the introduction of maintenance grants and on top-up fees to give our universities some money. As I see it, the only outcome of that will be taxing the very rich, the only people who still occasionally support the Conservative party. Given the hon. Gentleman's record at the Child Support Agency, we should not have expected much more from him today.

Alistair Burt: The Minister is trying to draw conclusions that simply are not there. I made no specific reference to any particular partner group. We are having an open consultation with all the parties involved in higher education. That is in total contrast to the closed review that the Minister started, but which now seems to have been completed by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.

Margaret Hodge: I was simply drawing to the House's attention the spending implications of some of the suggestions that the Conservatives have put on the table.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked us not to abandon the principle that those who gain from education contribute towards it. I can give him the assurance that we will not. I also recognise my hon. Friend's support for early-day motion 308, and I recognise the additional financial pressures that exist for students in London. I hope that he recognises that their entitlement to loans is 23 per cent. higher than elsewhere, but we will keep that under review.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) showed more concern for today's students than for our ambition to increase participation to half of all people under 30 in Britain today. The financial burden imposed on today's students by the mortgage-style loans system introduced by the Conservative party in government creates far more difficulties for today's graduates than our proposal, which is based on the ability to repay because it is income-contingent.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) is right that we are a listening Government. We are listening to him and to all other hon. Members. I agree that providing support to enable people to participate post-16 is one of the key issues that we must address.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) also referred to post-16 participation. I agree entirely that if we cannot get that right, we will not achieve the ambition that we have set ourselves. Part of our task is to ensure that those students who go through further education—most of the 16 to 19-year-old cohort is in that FE sector—should receive high-quality education. We must work to improve the retention and attainment rates of those students who go through the education system. The attention that we are placing on raising quality and standards in the FE sector—a matter addressed by the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council—is important. The matter may not have been raised in the most appropriate way, but the issue is important. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and the Government in what we are trying to do to raise standards.
	Only the Government have the credibility, the energy, the commitment and the bottle to tackle the tough and challenging issues that need to be tackled to achieve real change. Getting more people through higher education will not be easy. We have to keep more young people in full-time education beyond school-leaving age. We must raise attainment levels at level 3. We must lift young people's aspirations, especially those from the lower socio-economic groups. We must change attitudes in schools, universities and colleges.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her speech to the universities on Monday, we want universities to put down roots in schools and colleges so that the presence of someone from higher education in our schools becomes the norm. We want young people's ambitions to be raised so that they are persuaded that university is for people like them.
	We must also ensure that the student funding systems are right to support our policies. I should like to make three brief points.
	First, we should not get the issue out of proportion. The UCAS figures for this year, far from showing a decline, show a healthy increase in the number of people seeking and securing a place in higher education. The exception, interestingly enough and in contradiction to an earlier claim, is Scotland. That goes for mature students, who belong to the group that many have claimed were the most fearful of debt and most likely to reject university because of the new funding regime.
	Secondly, we need to be clear about what is in place already. The tuition fee is means tested. This year, more than half of students will pay no fees at all. There is a range of specifically targeted schemes to support those students most likely to face most financial difficulties. That range includes opportunity bursaries, grants for disabled students, grants to students with dependants and child care grants.
	Thirdly, I believe that all hon. Members share and accept the important principle that it is right that those who benefit from the investment in higher education should contribute to the costs of it. The issues that we need to address have to do with the balance between the contributions from graduates, their families and the state, and about how and when repayments occur.
	That is why we have established our review. Now is the right time to take stock. We want to look at the concerns that have been expressed about student debt, especially among students from lower-income families. We want to maintain and enhance the standards of excellence in our universities, and we want to make sure that we can reach our target of widening access.
	Despite speculation to the contrary, nothing is ruled in, and nothing is ruled out. This is a complex and difficult area, and the debate has shown that we will need to consider it carefully.
	I reassure hon. Members that the Government will want to consult widely on the options that we develop, but our ambition is clear. We want to open up opportunity for many more young people. We want them to have the opportunity to widen their horizons by engaging in further and higher learning, and to develop their intellectual skills, imagination, confidence and understanding.
	We want young people to be able to enhance the qualifications that they gain so that they can contribute more to the world of work, and to be able to earn more through their adult lives. We want them to have the opportunity to contribute fully to our country's economic, social, cultural and political life. Our agenda is about widening opportunity for individuals, and enhancing the potential for the economy.
	Higher education has a vital contribution to make to that agenda. It is our task to deliver, and we will.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the approach the Government has taken to higher education since 1997, particularly the extra investment the Government is making in Higher Education, meaning an extra £1.7 billion of publicly planned funding in the six years to 2003–04; further welcomes the Government's commitment to widening participation so that half of under-30 year olds will benefit from the opportunities of higher education by the end of the decade; supports the Government's reforms of student support, introduced in 1998, which have increased the resources available to higher education establishments; agrees with the principle, underlying these reforms, that those who benefit from the considerable advantages that higher education can offer are asked to contribute when they can afford to; recognises that the Government has always been committed to monitor and to review the impact of these reforms; and further welcomes the Secretary of State for Education and Skills' recent announcement of this review.

Social Security

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3210) dated 21st September 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th September, be annulled.
	The motion—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? We are beginning an important debate.

David Willetts: The motion was tabled so that the House would have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government's proposals on changes to incapacity benefit and other regulations. Indeed, we tabled it during one of the emergency recalls in order to secure an early debate.
	The purpose of the debate is to bring some clarity to the confusion spread during the past four months about the Government's proposals on incapacity and other benefits. It is a sorry tale that has left many disabled people uncertain as to what the Government are proposing by way of changes to the benefit regime that affects so many millions of them.
	The story begins with the Queen's Speech on 20 June which announced legislation on the matter, including a welfare reform Bill. A few days later, during parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear: he said that
	"the Queen's Speech announced a welfare reform Bill that will include measures to ensure that more and more people are invited in for interview, so that they can see what options and choices there are to enable them to get back into work."—[Official Report, 25 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 367.]
	The proposal was for primary legislation as part of a welfare reform Bill.
	In a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Secretary of State expanded on his proposals. The press, of course, expanded on them even more, but the right hon. Gentleman said
	"as an example of that new approach, we propose to make awards of Incapacity Benefit for fixed periods. So that at the end of the award, we can review the claim and offer more . . . support".
	That was the position at the beginning of July.
	The Secretary of State encountered considerable concern and distress, not least owing to the clumsy briefing to the effect that the proposals were MOT tests for disabled people—hardly a helpful way of discussing welfare reform. The Conservatives support measures to ensure that disability benefits are awarded only to people who are genuinely disabled, but we do not think that is the way to tackle a serious reform.
	The issue came up during Prime Minister's questions on 4 July. The Prime Minister said:
	"It cannot be right that we have a situation in which people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work."
	He went to make a comment that we often hear from Labour Members:
	"I think every Member of the House knows that people were transferred on to incapacity benefit to disguise the true levels of unemployment in the 1980s."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 254-261.]
	I want to offer the House a brief history lesson. Incapacity benefit was introduced in 1995 as a reform introduced by the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

Win Griffiths: It was a new name.

David Willetts: No; it was not simply another name for a previous benefit; it was a significant change in the regime.
	The number of people on incapacity benefit fell steadily from the introduction of the benefit in 1995 until 1998, since when, under the present Government, the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit has started to increase. Therefore, under us the number of people on incapacity benefit was falling; under the present Government, the number of people on incapacity benefit is rising. The number of people whose claims were terminated by reason of failing the personal capability assessment was running at approximately 40,000 per quarter. That number is now down to 20,000. Almost half of the decline in measured claimant count unemployment is matched by an increase in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit under the present Government.
	I would gladly give the Secretary of State the opportunity to repeat the claim that he always makes: that those statements may be true—of course, they are true—but the explanation is that more and more women have a contributions record that entitles them to incapacity benefit. That is not the whole story. It is true that some of the increase in incapacity benefit claimants is among women, but there are now 24,000 more men claiming incapacity benefit than there were when the number of recipients reached its lowest point. In fact, there is now a steady upward trend in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit and I believe that the Government, instead of making false claims about the history of the benefit, need to explain clearly why, while they are in office, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit is rising.

Alistair Darling: I very much hope to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to point out now that no history of incapacity benefit that starts in 1995 can possibly be complete. The total case load of incapacity benefit is far too high, and to a large extent that is because a very large number of people went on to the then invalidity benefit in the 1980s. The problem was that those people were given no help or advice to return to work; the then Tory Government simply dumped them on that benefit to disguise unemployment. If we are going to have a history lesson, let us have a complete history lesson.

David Willetts: It is certainly one effect of the calling in for interviews of people who claim unemployment benefit, and it was undoubtedly an effect when restart interviews were conducted in the mid-1980s, that some people who are classified as unemployed are discovered to have disabilities that mean that they receive disability benefits. I should be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State will deny that that happens today, when some people are claiming jobseeker's allowance or income support on the grounds that they are not in work. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to deny that, in benefit offices all around the country now, staff are saying, "We have discovered, from the interviews that we have been conducting with you, that you have a disability, so we believe that it is more appropriate that you be on a disability benefit"? Of course that goes on. That is part of the day-to-day business of scrutinising benefits and ensuring that people claim the benefits to which they are rightly entitled. I am asking the Secretary of State to explain why the incapacity benefit case load is now rising, and rising among men as well as women.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman's figures appear to suggest that all the scare stories that he and the Liberal Democrats were putting round in 1999 have come to nothing, but I want to take him back to the Queen's Speech, which he mentioned at the start of his contribution. Is it not the case that the Queen's Speech talked about enhancing the civil rights of disabled people even further, and would that not include the right to work for people who can, the right to benefit and support for people who need it, and the right to high-quality advice, and are not they all embodied in the Secretary of State's proposals?

David Willetts: I entirely agree with all those propositions. It is important that people who are suffering from disability are helped into work whenever that is feasible; I accept that. The question that I hope to come to during my remarks is whether the Government's proposals will be effective in achieving that objective.
	While the Prime Minister was on his feet in this Chamber on 4 July, claiming that people were going to be on incapacity benefit for 10, 15 or 20 years without any attempt being made to investigate whether they were genuinely entitled to it—while he was perpetrating nothing short of a myth—the Secretary of State's colleague, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, in the other place at almost exactly the same time, was adopting a different tone, perhaps because, unlike the Prime Minister, she knew the facts. She said
	"At the moment the Benefits Agency carries out 1 million personal capability assessments every year. Half of those tests are repeat assessments, the other half are first-time applications. So all new claims for incapacity benefit are now subject to review at some point between the timespan of six months and five years. There is nothing new about checking ongoing claims for incapacity benefit."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 858.]
	Indeed, a well-established provision in legislation enables any benefit officer who suspects that someone on incapacity benefit might be capable of work to require that person to have a medical reassessment.
	The Minister's predecessor, who is sadly now on the Back Benches, the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), when discussing medical incapacity testing in Standing Committee D on 15 April 1999, said
	"Seventy-three per cent. of those tested were recommended by the doctor for retesting within 18 months. In only 28 per cent. of cases was no change in the medical condition anticipated and no pre-ordained retest time set."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 April 1999; c.786.]
	That is the regime that applies at present. That description from the previous Minister responsible for disability benefits in the then Department of Social Security is an accurate description of the present regime.
	What the Prime Minister said in oral questions and the accounts that were spun to justify the Government's measures were not an accurate account of that regime. It is worth hon. Members on both sides of the House being aware of the facts about how the present regime works, as it enables us to scrutinise this measure properly.

Chris Ruane: If there is so much concern on the Conservative Benches about this issue, how come only eight of the 169 Conservative Members have turned up today?

David Willetts: The main debate today was introduced by the Liberal Democrat party and we know how boring debates introduced by the minor parties on their Supply days are. The hon. Gentleman will find that Conservative Members never flock here on such days.

Angela Browning: May I remind my hon. Friend that had he and his colleagues not prayed against the measure, we would not have had any debate on it?

David Willetts: That is correct and it is another matter with which I hope to deal.
	By 5 July the Secretary of State had announced that the Government would introduce primary legislation and establish fixed time limits for the receipt of incapacity benefit. They justified their policy through seriously misleading claims about the way in which the present regime was operated.
	As we all know, there was widespread concern and confusion about what was proposed. Lord Ashley of Stoke was accurate when he pointed out in The Times that
	"The Government has the power to repeatedly reassess if it wishes, and it undoubtedly uses it. The proposed changes are unnecessary."
	One of our criticisms of the Government is that it is not the regulations that have caused problems with securing reliable and prompt medical assessments and reassessments under the present rules for incapacity benefit; the problem has been getting access to medical assessments and reassessments when benefits offices want them to be carried out. The real problem has been with the delivery of those assessments.

Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with the medical assessments that he mentions are partly caused by the way in which the Government have messed about with the remuneration and administrative arrangements of the medical officers involved, as one of my constituents recently wrote to tell me?

David Willetts: A very powerful Select Committee report on precisely that subject was published during the previous Parliament. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	The Government got themselves into a serious mess, and on 12 July, The Guardian reported:
	"Government sources privately recognise the presentation of the proposal did not go as well as hoped".
	That is a fairly accurate account of the mess that the Government had got themselves into by 12 July. At that point, the climbdown began. First, we learned in a parliamentary answer from the Secretary of State that he had lost his nerve about introducing all these measures as part of primary legislation, which is where we began. Primary legislation would not be used, and he announced that
	regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 would be laid before both Houses in the autumn."—[Official Report, 11 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 567W.]
	So I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if he could confirm that, contrary to the assertions that were made, this matter will not form part of the welfare reform Bill that we expect to be introduced in the next few weeks? That was the first climbdown.
	The regulations that were then tabled include a memorandum that states:
	"The regulations will not result in claims being time limited."
	So I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if he could also confirm that, contrary to what he told the House during oral questions before the summer recess, claims for incapacity benefit will not be time limited under the regulations.
	In answer to an oral question that I asked last week, the Secretary of State said:
	"Medical examinations are indeed appropriate and we are not proposing to change the regime in that regard, although the administration of the examinations is being improved."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 911.]
	Has the regime for medical examinations under incapacity benefit changed? Hon. Members on both sides of the House and many representatives of disabled people are entitled to an answer to that question, not least because the Under–Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appeared to suggest in a written answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that
	"in certain circumstances, the new triennial review could lead to an additional medical test."
	So there seems to be a difference between what the Secretary of State said during oral questions and the Minister's answer.
	There has been confusion about whether the measures would be introduced under primary legislation or in regulations. There has been confusion about whether there will be a fixed period for incapacity benefit claims. There has also been confusion about whether there will be extra medical tests. To add to that confusion, the Government even seem to be confused about why we are debating the confusion.
	On 4 October, Conservative Members tabled early-day motion 216, which Liberal Democrat Members also signed, to try to secure a debate on these regulations. We made it clear at the time that that was why we tabled the motion, and I have a copy of it here. We were very surprised therefore to hear the Secretary of State say on the "Today" programme on Monday this week that
	"by the middle of last week I discovered that neither the Tories nor the Liberals had asked for a debate so I asked for our Whips to arrange a debate. The first slot I could get is this Thursday. Getting a slot on the Floor of the Commons is difficult at the best of times, but we've got that."
	We are holding this debate because we tabled a motion objecting to the regulations and we then pressed for a debate through the usual channels, so the Secretary of State has been consistently wrong and misleading not only about the purpose of the regulations and how they will work, but about why we are debating them today in the House of Commons.
	Uncertainty and distress has been caused by the four months of confusion about the regulations, but, as has been said, the crucial, underlying question is whether they will have any practical effect in helping people who are disabled and receive incapacity benefit to find work.
	The Government are supposed to be keen on what they call "evidence-based" policy. That is one of new Labour's buzzwords. We have much evidence in many research reports from the Department of Social Security about the impact of the ONE programme and what effect piloting of work-focused interviews has had on benefit claimants.
	I shall quote to the Secretary of State the research produced by his own Department, evaluating the impact of ONE. Research report No. 140, published this year, says, for example:
	"ONE did not seem to challenge or change the expectations of those jobseekers with previous experience of claiming. They largely perceived the service to be the same 'process' they had experienced before and, in some instances, compared the advice received unfavourably with that offered through the Jobcentre."
	The report states as a summary:
	"there was no change in the attitudes and/or behaviour of those already in work".
	The researchers were not able to detect any change. The summary also states:
	"Personal advisers were able to change a few participants' attitudes to work".
	That, I suppose, is progress of a sort, although the summary continues:
	"These impacts, however, are an exception to the wider experience of those participants who did not feel work was an option."
	Labour Members believe that the Government have cracked the problem of helping people on benefits into work by introducing compulsory interviews. I invite those who genuinely believe that to consider the evidence in the Government's evaluations of the piloting of the schemes.
	Research report No. 126 found that in areas subject to the piloting of the scheme, where, it is worth pointing out, it has been going on for some time,
	"Respondents in the sick or disabled group who had not participated in ONE were more likely to be in work than were participants".
	So, before Labour Members tell us that they have cracked the problem of helping disabled people or others into work by introducing compulsory work-focused interviews, they need to explain why they do not believe the Government's evaluations, which the DSS has helpfully produced. As the researchers say,
	"This finding is not easy to explain",
	but that is their finding.
	I shall quote from other research reports, and refer Members who wish to pursue the subject to research reports Nos. 126, 140 and 149.
	"Among sick or disabled clients whose background or circumstances might hinder entry to the labour market, there was no evidence that those in the pilot areas were more likely than the controls"—
	those who did not have ONE job-focused interviews—
	"to be working or looking for work at the second survey interview about 10 months after their claim".
	Therefore, the evidence is that the proposal, which after all the confusion and distress the Secretary of State has finally put before the House, is unlikely to have any practical effects on the prospects of people in receipt of benefit, especially disabled people, subsequently entering work.

Chris Pond: It is helpful that the hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is thoroughly confused about the matter. I am sure that, by the end of the debate, it will become clearer to him.
	At the base of the issue is a significant difference between the approach of his party when in government, which was to look carefully at people's inabilities and to identify whether people could not do things, and that of the Labour party in government, which is to see what people can do and what measures can be taken to ensure that they are not written off as in the past but given all possible help. In every circumstance, that help may not be enough, but at least it will be given.

David Willetts: We have heard that rhetoric for five years. Are the practical effects, which are outlined in the evaluations of the policies that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) supported, consistent with that rhetoric? After five years, we are entitled to evidence. It is beginning to appear and it shows that the programmes are not delivering what was promised.
	The evaluation of the new deal for lone parents and their prospects of finding work clearly shows that those who did not participate in the compulsory interviews were slightly more likely to get employment than those who were called for interview. There is therefore no point in the hon. Member for Gravesham simply repeating the 1997 rhetoric. The Government can no longer live on that. We want to know what is working, and the evidence shows that the Government's approach is not.

Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman said that I was confused; I am pleased that he is not. I shall give way again, provided that he explains why we have moved from primary legislation to regulations, whether there will be extra medical tests and fixed claim periods for incapacity benefit, and why the House is debating the matter today. I am confused about those subjects, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not.

Chris Pond: The hon. Gentleman knows that the majority of lone parents who went to an interview took up one of the options that they were offered. That does not necessarily mean that they entered paid employment; training or child care opportunities might be considered in an interview. However, the interview process increased the opportunities and potential of lone parents to make a better life for themselves and their families. That is a move forward.

David Willetts: We are getting into more detail than necessary at the moment.

Nick Brown: The substance.

David Willetts: I shall tell the Minister exactly what the research shows. In the pilot areas for the new deal, a slightly higher rate of lone parents left income support than in those where it was not piloted. The number of lone parents going into work through the new deal was slightly lower. More lone parents left income support because of "repartnering". The only practical effect of the new deal appears to be that some lone parents admit that they are cohabiting when they get the letter that calls them for interview. I should be happy to debate that any time with the hon. Member for Gravesham. If he does not accept my comments, I should like to know why he disagrees with research report No. 108.
	The Government have caused distress and confusion to disabled people. They have changed their policy several times in the past four months and been unable to offer any significant evidence to support it. They have also been unable to show evidence that the interviews, which are supposed to have such a transforming effect on the prospects of disabled people, will make any difference.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman has made some telling points, but he has left me uncertain about the position of the Conservative party. Does he believe that the measures are too draconian or not draconian enough?

David Willetts: Our party's position is simple: we support effective measures to help people on incapacity benefit and others into work. We do not know what exactly the Government propose and whether their measures will have any effect. That is the reason for the debate. We look forward to the Secretary of State's explanation of the confusion that he has caused in the past four months.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate must finish at 5.41 pm. Several are trying to catch my eye and the length of the speeches will determine how many hon. Members can contribute.

Terry Rooney: I remember the 1980s, when the then Employment Service in every town and city had a monthly target for the number of people who had to be removed from the register—not necessarily into work—and the number against whom a sanction had to be applied. A regime of fear operated in the Employment Service, which had no interest in assisting anybody to get work. I hope that we saw the back of those days long ago.
	There is a great deal of misinformation, and disinformation, about exactly what the proposals mean. Personally, I am delighted that the Employment Service now seeks to be interventionist and to help people return to work. Some may recall that back in the 1970s everyone who claimed unemployment benefit had to go for an interview, and it was a work-focused interview. It may not have been called that, but that is what it was. In the 1980s, the Conservatives abandoned the system and abandoned unemployed people.
	In principle, I see nothing wrong with new claimants having to go for interviews, given the safeguards contained in regulation 5. However, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us in what circumstances an interview would not be deemed "appropriate"—that, I think, is a worry for all of us.

David Winnick: I—along with others, for all I know—am especially concerned about the severely disabled, as I said in a question to the Prime Minister a few months ago. I note that when there are good reasons, such as a claimant's state of health, interviews can be deferred. The severely disabled, as new claimants, should not be put in such a situation as they are clearly in no position to work. I—and, I am sure, my hon. Friend—would not want any further anxiety to be imposed on them.

Terry Rooney: That is a worthy concern, but, according to the terms of incapacity benefit, claimants can be excused from further medical examination for three, five or 10 years, or for life, if it is obvious that their condition will not improve. I assume that the intention is to extend exemption from interview to those who are already exempt from medical examination.
	We need to reflect on the measures taken over the past four years and the impact that they have had. Will the regulations prove to be an extension of those measures, or will they begin to undo them? Between April 1997 and September 2001, my area has experienced an 80 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment and a 72 per cent. reduction in adult long-term unemployment. That has not happened by accident; the new deal has played a part. The new deal, however, is becoming an old deal. It is becoming tired.
	There is now a hard core of young people with multiple problems who do not fit easily into any of the slots, and the new deal is not flexible enough to cope with them. For instance, about 50 per cent. of unemployed people under 24 in the Bradford travel-to-work area are referred to the environmental taskforce or voluntary sector options, 90 per cent. of them on a mandatory basis. The vast majority are experiencing that for the second, third or fourth time. All that the new deal is doing is recycling people. If we are to handle them properly, we must think again about the principles of the new deal and the rigid inflexibility that it incorporates.
	I fear that claimants will lack confidence in the new work-focused interviews. I fear that the advisers will not be sufficiently well trained, and will not be supported by enough flexibility in the system, to deliver packages demonstrating that individuals rather than targets count. It may not have been intended, but there is now an incredible degree of rigidity and prescription in the Employment Service's application of the new deal. It has escaped from its original admirable ambitions and application. During the first two or three years, it was fantastic and the flexibility was there, but it seems to have lost it. We need to be careful that this measure does not go down that same road. The focus has to be the individual, not departmental programmes, statistics or targets.
	There is another problem, which seems to operate across all civil service matters and all programmes, whichever Government are in power. Over time, there develops an obsession with outputs rather than outcomes. If we are serious about this matter, we need to start sending messages down the line that it is outcomes that matter, rather than being able to put a tick in the correct box.
	If this measure is to work, we need the right training for the advisers, and confidence among claimants that the system will help them, rather than beat them. We also need to emphasise that this is a matter of choice, not coercion. Approximately 25,000 people a year with severe disabilities have, with the right help and support, been moved into mainstream employment through sheltered employment projects such as Remploy. That is not cheap, but it shows that, with the right programme, the right support and the right attitude towards discriminatory employers, the opportunities are there for those who want them. This scheme must work on the same basis. Those who are readily employable and who want to work will easily be able to walk away from the benefit system and get employment. The challenge will be for those difficult cases with a multiplicity of problems.
	I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a technical question, because I cannot see the answer in the regulations. At the moment, anybody on statutory sick pay is automatically transferred to incapacity benefit after 196 days. It is not clear from the regulations—that provision does not seem to have been repealed—whether that will still apply or whether such a change would be conditional on an interview. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify that.
	In principle, I support what the Government are doing, but the mechanics of the proposals need to be worked out very carefully.

Angela Browning: It will be on the record of the House that I expressed concern about these regulations when the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill was first debated in May 1999. I used the opportunity of an exchange during oral questions to the Leader of the House on 11 May to pursue the subject. The Secretary of State will recall that, during the most recent oral questions, I also pursued the matter of the therapeutic earnings rules, when I asked what part they would play in what would be offered to people with disabilities.
	My particular concern is the one that I had originally, and it has also been picked up by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). It is the matter of people with a severe disability. I want to focus on people with learning disabilities and on-going mental health problems. I shall not rehearse the arguments that I made before on the subject. I simply say to the Secretary of State that the arrival, out of the blue, of a request to attend a compulsory interview on a particular day is a major problem for many people with a severe learning disability or mental health problem. I can think of many people with that type of disability who would simply bin the letter in a panic.
	The Secretary of State has said that there is to be recognition of people with on-going severe disabilities and that they will be protected. Will he give a little more detail of exactly how those cases will be analysed? I accept that this regulation relates to new claimants, but some new claimants will have severe, lifelong disabilities. I am all in favour of trying to access appropriate employment for people with a range of disabilities, including some of those with severe mental health problems and some of those with learning disabilities.
	We hear a lot about portals and gateways. If those people are to be required to go for an interview and are told that if they do not attend they will lose key benefits, it is essential that, whatever portal or gateway they are encouraged to go through, appropriate and well-informed sources of support are in place to help them to access that employment. It would be criminal to raise expectations and to put them through what could be for them the traumatic experience of the interview without being able to guarantee that support will be there on the other side of the gateway or portal.

John McDonnell: The hon. Lady raises an important point regarding mental health and various other conditions. The key aspect is the training of the staff involved, their ability to respond to the particular needs of people suffering from those conditions, and their ability to assess reactions to the demand for an interview and the behaviour at the interview itself, which could become confrontational unless training is given.

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right. I know that he takes a particular interest in these issues and speaks with great knowledge on the subject. I hope that the Secretary of State will have heard what he said.
	What worries me is that in the regulations there is a priority list of benefits that will be lost if a person fails to attend the interview. At the top is income support. The Secretary of State will know that people with a severe disability may qualify for the severe disability premium of income support. The amount of money that they receive may qualify them for certain levels of housing benefit. They may have a package of support from, say, social services, to which they make a contribution. That contribution will be based on the level of income support that their disability attracts. Suddenly to remove or to reduce it because they did not attend an interview could cause severe financial problems. They could get into debt. It could cause huge problems in terms of their well-being and state of mind.
	I want to know from the Secretary of State how he will deal with severe disability while at the same time offering equal opportunity. If what was being put before the House was an enhanced opportunity for people, particularly those with learning disabilities or on-going mental health problems, to access employment or a phased way into paid employment that was not just a make-work scheme but real paid employment, I could appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is that that group of people will be told, "This is compulsory and if you do not attend the interview you will lose benefit."
	I think that the Government have gone wrong. It is a new rule that is to apply only to new claimants. The very language of the debate and what is written in the regulations seems to imply that just about everyone claiming benefits who has a disability once held down a job and for physical disability reasons no longer does so.
	We know the prevalence of back injury; it is common. People start out in a working life. Their health may deteriorate physically or they may suffer a back injury or some strain injury at work that means they are no longer able to do the job they have always done. They may then go on incapacity benefit. To try to get those people into some other form of work is wholly laudable.
	If that is what the Government are trying to do, they will have my total support, but there is an element of, "Come for the interview on the day we say, regardless of your level of disability." [Hon. Members: "No."] I wait to be reassured. It is now three years down the track and I am still not reassured. the disability organisations are not reassured and Lord Ashley of Stoke is not reassured. We are waiting for that reassurance. [Hon. Members: "Sit down."] I will in a minute. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may find it amusing, but I have received correspondence from people with disabilities who may be affected by the legislation. They do not find it amusing at all. They find it not only hurtful and confusing, but rather frightening.

David Winnick: I know that the hon. Lady is being baited by my hon. Friends. Party politics comes into these matters and I am the last one to criticise that. However, she can take this reassurance if it is worth anything to her: today she has said hardly a single word with which I disagree.

Angela Browning: I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman indicated in an intervention earlier that he is knowledgeable on this subject. I am sure that he is concerned, as many of us are, about our constituents who will receive such a letter. I should like the Secretary of State to provide more details about what will happen to people who may not turn up to the interview because they cannot manage official correspondence or because their state of mind is such that they are unable to deal with the letter. We cannot assume that all such people have very convenient social workers whom they can phone up and ask, "What shall I do about this letter?"
	We are dealing with a draconian rule that failure to attend the interview will result in a loss of benefit and with regulations that catch-all do not apply only to people who have a disability that has prevented them from working for some time and want to get back into work, but to people on the disability register who have lifelong disabilities that they were born with. The provision makes no differentiation between those people and someone who may have a back injury.

Tom Levitt: rose—

Angela Browning: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I let him intervene on me in the debate in 1999 and I hope that this time he will make a more sensible intervention than he did then.

Tom Levitt: Fond memories, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The points that the hon. Lady raises would be right if they had not been answered during the debates in 1999. I remember raising the same issues in Committee and I was told by Ministers that it would be possible for advisers to visit the homes of people who could not get out and that it would be possible for communications support to be provided—indeed, it would be essential. There will be a flexible, personalised, tailored process so that people get the appropriate help in the appropriate way. The hon. Lady should not forget that 1 million disabled people would like to work.

Angela Browning: I am not forgetting that, but for some people about whom I am concerned a stranger visiting them at home would be a major trauma. I quite appreciate that if someone has a physical incapacity that means that it is difficult for them to attend an interview, the interviewer may decide that it would be better to offer them an interview at home. However, people with certain disabilities have communication problems that could be critical in an interview. They do not always have support workers to attend the interview with them.
	Reference has been made to training and the level of expertise offered by interviewers and their support workers. I should like to think that it was there, but I am afraid that it is not. We do not see it in any other aspect of the lives of people with those disabilities, so it seems strange that it is suddenly on offer when they have to attend a statutory interview.

Terry Rooney: The hon. Lady is in danger of severely over-egging the pudding. She should remember that we are discussing people who have made contact with the service in order to make a claim, so she should be careful about using the communication argument.

Angela Browning: Regardless of how those people contacted the service in the first place, some quite intelligent people are affected by communications disorders. They cannot pick up the phone and make contact—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads. Their ignorance on this subject is palpable. Ignorance is bliss. I hope that the Secretary of State will be wise when he responds to the debate.
	The problem, as we can see from previous debates, is that the profile of a person with a disability is predominantly of someone with a physical disability and ignores those with multiple disabilities or severe learning disabilities. It certainly does not encompass someone with schizophrenia, living in the community and drawing benefits, who will almost certainly receive such a letter. It is too much of a catch-all provision.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, the Government's agenda is not about addressing the needs of people with disabilities but about using the benefits system to gerrymander some figures to make it look as though they are fulfilling some long-lost election pledge to deal with benefit fraud. There are very few people who genuinely have a disability who seek to defraud the Exchequer.

Frank Field: My point links to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). One of the real achievements of the party that is now in opposition was to change the debate about unemployment. It managed to focus the public mind on the fact that a considerable number of people were unemployed because they wanted to be, rather than because no jobs were available. We have lived through a period of about nine years during which the number of jobs in the community has continued to rise. It may be that we are now in a period during which, in the country as a whole, the number of people in work will begin to fall.
	When I was in opposition, I supported the policy of linking claimants to the labour market—it was called supply side reform—and I continue to do so now that we are in government, but we are beginning to enter a different period. I recently received a parliamentary answer showing that in 266 of our constituencies the employment rate is now lower than when we were first elected in 1997. In other words, while there will of course be some jobs, even in Birkenhead, it is becoming more difficult for claimants to find work, even if they want to. That will be generally true of the country as a whole, but particularly true of areas where there are already job scarcities.
	As we support joined-up government, the Secretary of State will have no problem with my plea to him, which is to tell the Chancellor that, while Labour Members support those moves that continue to develop the services that we provide for people who are seeking work, it is getting even more difficult to find work in some of our constituencies, quite simply because there is a shortage of jobs.
	Of course we support the development of the supply side policies to help people into work, but I hope that it will not be long before the Government begin to think of measures that they can introduce to encourage reflation at a local level, so that those of us who represent seats where the employment rate is lower than when our Government were first elected—that is, about a third of hon. Members—will see that such policies go hand in hand with policies to try to increase the number of jobs in areas with severe job shortages.

Steve Webb: In order to try to decide what the regulations are designed to achieve, it is worth considering the circumstances in which they were brought into the public view. On the day when the Secretary of State made his speech to the think tank about the regulations, catching the disability organisations on the hop, the newspapers, before he spoke, were running headlines about MOT tests for the disabled.
	Ministers shook their heads when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raised the issue, but when we read on the day of a Minister giving a speech, that
	"Details will be disclosed by Alistair Darling . . . Mr. Darling also hinted",
	I suspect that there has been some communication between the newspapers and the Department. The same phrase, "MOT for the disabled", appeared in the Evening Standard one day and in The Times the next day, and although that phrase was not in the Minister's speech, it makes me wonder what role the briefers had to play.

Alistair Darling: I regard the phrase "MOT for the disabled" as deeply offensive in that context. If the hon. Gentleman reads the article, he will see that it is not attributed to me, but it is directly attributed to someone else. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the House who said it, because that person should be ashamed of himself.

Steve Webb: If the Secretary of State's spinners, when they leak speeches to the newspapers, produce such headlines, he should have better people spinning for him.

Alistair Darling: I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. As he is entitled to do, he has referred to a newspaper article. Will he now please tell us who made that remark, because it is attributed to someone by The Times. He has the article and, for the sake of completeness, I hope that he will tell us who made that offensive remark.

Steve Webb: The article says that Joe Korner of the Royal National Institute for the Blind was worried that the Secretary of State was proposing MOT checks for the disabled. All the subsequent press coverage—and the Government have some influence on what is written about their policies—[Hon. Members: "No."] Perhaps the Government have no influence on what is written and I have misunderstood. The coverage of what the Secretary of State had put in The Times before his speech led to grave concern among disabled people. The Secretary of State may claim innocence of that, but that was the result. Disabled people opened their newspapers in the morning to read the coverage that arose from the Secretary of State's briefing about the speech.
	The next day, the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick) challenged the Prime Minister at Question Time. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister had believed the spin from the Department for Work and Pensions. As the hon. Member for Havant said, the Prime Minister said that people could not be left for 10, 15 or 20 years on benefits, but the fact is that the situation is extremely atypical except for the most severely disabled people. The Prime Minister thought that the regulations had something to do with getting people who were not really disabled off benefit. They are nothing of the sort.
	The Secretary of State must take responsibility for the way in which he briefs the press when he launches an initiative. The Government are proud of the way in which they manage the media, but if that management disturbs genuinely disabled people, the Secretary of State should examine his conscience on the issue.
	On which points do we agree with the Government? When it comes to Liberal Democrat criticism of his policy, the Secretary of State is fond of setting up straw men and then knocking them down, so I shall make our position clear. We support efforts to help disabled people who want and are able to work to get back to work.

Tim Boswell: So do we.

Steve Webb: So that is the Conservative party's position as well. However, should not the Government be doing more to make it easier for disabled people to get back to work allowing people to combine part-time work with part-time benefit?

Alistair Darling: Tax credits.

Steve Webb: Those are received by a handful of people compared with the 1 million whom we are told want work. Four years ago, the Government said that 1 million disabled people want to work but are not doing so. Today, we heard the same figure. What have the Government been doing? They have achieved nothing in four years.
	The key issue—which was properly raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney)—is how the compulsory issues will affect disabled people. More than a quarter of the people receiving incapacity benefit have mental health or behavioural problems, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. What effect will the regulations have on them?
	On 15 October, I asked the Secretary of State to supply me with the guidance notes that he will issue to his officials to administer the scheme. Those guidance notes still have not been forthcoming.

Alistair Darling: They should be.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State says that they should be, but I asked the Library this morning. At that time, the staff said that they had received nothing. Later, they rang to say that they had received the two-page memorandum, but they had not had the jobcentre guidance for officials. So I had to get it from somewhere else. Tabling a question in the House of Commons and giving it ten days is obviously a waste of time; I had to get a leaked copy from somewhere else. That is appalling.
	I was staggered when I read the guidance, which has not been in the public domain until this week. There is a section on people with mental health problems, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said. Paragraph 58 deals with the threat of suicide, and says that
	"if information is received by phone, letter or in person, that a person in distress plans to commit suicide the basic rule to remember is that, they might well do so. It is therefore important to treat such information seriously."
	That is the guidance for those who will be forcing people with mental health problems to come in for interviews on pain of loss of benefit. The guidance says:
	"Staff have a responsibility to process benefit claims quickly and accurately and to be aware of the potential risks to the customer when legitimately withdrawing or sanctioning benefit from a person known to have a mental health problem."
	Why has not any of this been laid before the House for us to see? The Government are telling their own officials that, potentially, they will have real problems when they deal with people with mental health problems. [Interruption.] I will not repeat what was said from a sedentary position; it would be unparliamentary. It is clear that people with mental health problems will have concerns about this matter. What will the Government do for them?
	What about severely disabled people? A number of hon. Members are concerned about who will be allowed what they call "waivers" at the interviews. The astonishing thing is that we have referred to the primary legislation—the Act that allowed the regulations to be introduced—but it did not say who would be exempted. We have looked at the regulations, which do not say who will be exempted.
	The memorandum that came to the Library this morning says that, for example, people with a terminal illness, people who have been recently bereaved or people about to start a job should be exempted. But who else? We do not know and we have no way of controlling it, because it is not in the regulations. It is down to the guidance; the guidance that was not laid before the House and which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is down to the discretion of individual decision makers.
	The Government say that they are concerned about the rights of disabled people. Why do not they have these rights in the regulations? Why is it down to the individual discretion of the decision maker? What protection do those involved have? Do they know that the interviews can be waived at all? Will anyone tell them? If they fell in a definite category because of a particular condition, they would have some security. However, they have no security under the proposals. The hon. Member for Havant said that the research evidence is clear that these schemes do not actually work. He referred to research report No. 149, but did not read out the title.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman seems to be relying very much—remarkably so—on the arguments of the hon. Member for Havant. What about the views of the organisations of and for people with disabilities? So far, he has mentioned the RNIB. I have its briefing, which is excellent. Nowhere in it does the RNIB support the view that the regulations should be annulled. Does he have any evidence that any other organisation of that kind supports the same view? I have not found any.

Steve Webb: The RNIB briefing says that
	"the helping hand philosophy
	—the Government's defence of what they are doing—
	doesn't exactly tally with the compulsory, punitive nature of the provisions."
	It goes on to say that the regulations will mean that
	"blind people face a new hurdle to getting their full benefit entitlement."
	The RNIB goes on to talk about people who become blind and lose their job, saying that an interview just after losing work because of the onset of blindness
	"may not do them any good, but it could very well cause them additional stress and anxiety."
	I agree that it does not say at the end of the briefing, "Therefore annul" but it does not sound to me like a ringing endorsement.
	The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) is quite right to mention what disabled people's organisations are saying. Leonard Cheshire says that it is
	"concerned that the fear of lost benefit as a direct consequence of not turning up to an interview may lead disabled people to giving up altogether."
	SCOPE says that
	"compulsory interviews will heighten the fears of disabled people."
	A number of organisations are concerned about the regulations—to varying extents, I accept—and we should listen to what they say.
	The research evidence is about the medium-term effect of the pilot schemes. It gives the schemes time to work, but the key word in the title is "voluntary." This is a departmental report on voluntary schemes to get people to go to interviews. It found that people who turn up to voluntary schemes—and such people are presumably well motivated—are no more likely to get a job. If volunteers are not more likely to get a job, what about conscripts? There is no evidence that the interviews work. In fact, there is clear evidence that disabled people—and especially newly disabled people—feel threatened by them.
	I tabled a question to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), about the effects of the interviews. This matter returns to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, North. The Minister told me that, although the work-focused interview would not normally have any effect on a subsequent medical test, there could be circumstances in which the person who conducts the work-focused interview will suggest that there should be another medical test.
	What expertise does the person talking about jobs have about disability and people's ability to work? Given that the work-related interview will probably be triggered by a person failing a medical test in the first place, what expertise does the person who conducts the interview have that will enable him to decide that that interviewee is not really ill and that there should be another test?
	Clearly, the regulations will be passed by the House, even though we will oppose them. Will the Secretary of State tell us, on the record, which severely disabled people will be excluded from the forced interviews? Secondly, will he confirm that the people conducting the interviews will have proper disability training so that they can work with people who are deaf or blind or who have other disabilities? Thirdly, will he confirm that targets will not be set for the numbers of people taken off incapacity benefit?
	The Government have failed to lay before Parliament the proper information about the regulations. They have frightened disabled people. That amounts to harassment and should be opposed.

Lynne Jones: I should like to associate myself with the concerns that have been raised by other hon. Members.
	When the matter first arose on 3 July, I was telephoned by a journalist who informed me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had briefed the media about his speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research the next day. I was told that my right hon. Friend had told journalists that all recipients of incapacity benefit—apart from severely disabled people who had no prospect of recovery—would be subject to repeat medical tests every three years. It is correct to say that I do not think that anyone suggested that my right hon. Friend referred to MOT tests for disabled people. I am pleased to be able to make that clear.
	That speech would probably have received little attention had it not been for that press briefing, which was clearly designed for a purpose. Subsequently, we heard about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's now notorious remarks, in which he spoke about people languishing on benefits. That seemed to be nothing more than an attempt to create the impression that disabled people get generous benefits that they do not deserve.
	I presume that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must have been briefed before his performance in the House that day, but clearly he was not well briefed. Perhaps it would be too much to expect him to grasp all the detail, or perhaps he was not aware that during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 the Minister with responsibility for disability benefits had explained that the doctors performing the all-work tests on behalf of the Benefits Agency are given five options with regard to specifying intervals between subsequent tests. They can specify three months, six months, 12 months or 18 months, or they can opt for "no significant change anticipated".
	More than 50 per cent. of those who are tested are recommended for retest in 12 months or less. In only 28 per cent. of cases was no preordained retest time set. Subsequently, the Government acquired powers to carry out tests even when there was no obvious change in a claimant's condition. They also introduced the personal capability assessment, a stringent medical test that takes into account what work a person can do.
	Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that fraud in claiming incapacity benefit, which is worth a meagre £69 a week at the long-term rate, is virtually non-existent. Only three cases—0.5 per cent.—were found from a sample of 1,400, whereas official errors were four times as high.
	In our last manifesto, we claimed that the number of people receiving incapacity benefit had fallen by 11 per cent. since 1997. Since then, the Government have backtracked somewhat on the initial proposal mooted by the Secretary of State. It became known that the new arrangements would apply only to new claimants—at least in the first instance. We know from the regulations that the proposals are for work-focused interviews, as laid down in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, which are to take place at least every three years, and people can still be referred for another personal capability assessment.
	It is difficult to find out what assessment the Government have made of the impact on the Benefits Agency medical service of conducting additional personal capability assessments. There are delays of between 90 and 170 days in carrying out the tests, and the system produces many wrong decisions. Many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the system's inadequacy and, indeed, cruelty.
	All hon. Members share the aim of giving people with disabilities more opportunities to participate fully in society, including, if they are able to work, the opportunity to do so. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that many disabled people say that they would like to work and many think that they could, given the proper assistance. The question is whether compulsion will assist in the process.
	Would a disabled person who was called to a compulsory interview about his capabilities and opportunities for work approach it positively? After all, he might not be entirely convinced that out there in the wide world, in the labour market, the Government have succeeded in overcoming the disadvantage and stigma attached to disabled people, particularly those with mental health difficulties. Would he approach the interview positively, given his fears that he might lose benefit and that he might be referred back for yet another harrowing personal capability assessment?
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) referred in an intervention to the RNIB briefing. I cannot speak for his interpretation of the briefing, but mine is that although it is very much against the regulations it accepts that the Government are determined to push them through. Indeed, they started to do so a couple of days before we were able to debate the measures in the House.
	If my right hon. Friend is determined to push the measures through, perhaps he could set up an experiment to gauge their effectiveness. The pathfinder areas could be divided into two groups. In one group, the measures could proceed as planned; in the other, instead of making attendance compulsory, the measures could be promoted among disabled people, using their networks. That would comprise the positive and helpful support for disabled people that we want to see.
	My experience from speaking to people who have been on new deal programmes before is that they value the assistance given. That is especially true of lone parents. Many of them opted into the system voluntarily because they had heard good things about it from their friends. That is a much better approach to achieving our aim, which I entirely share, of assisting more disabled people into work.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider that as a possibility, and that in the light of the outcome of this experience—I hope that he will give it sufficient time to provide adequate evidence—he will not extend the provision further unless there is evidence that it works.

Alistair Darling: I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who had hoped to speak in the debate, but it is a short debate and if I do not speak now I might not be able to answer some of the points that have been put.
	It is interesting that in neither of the speeches by the principal Opposition speakers did we hear one shred of policy for dealing with a problem that successive Governments have had to confront. I understand the difficulties that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has in opposing what is before the House, because I have just reminded myself what the Conservative spokesman said about the single gateway to the benefit system and work-focused interviews when we debated the primary legislation in 1999:
	"we do not have a problem with the idea of the single gateway . . . There is great logic in directly connecting a claimant's interview process and eventual job achievement with the claiming of benefit."—[Official Report, 17 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 674.]
	Who said that? It was the present Leader of the Opposition, so I can see the difficulty for the hon. Member for Havant
	It might be helpful if I set out what the regulations do. They provide that everyone of working age who makes a new or repeat claim to benefit at a Jobcentre Plus office should take part in a work-focused interview as a condition of receiving benefit. Jobcentre Plus offices are replacing the Employment Service and Benefits Agency offices; the first 49 opened for business on Monday, and that number will be extended throughout the country, starting from next year.
	Yes, this is a new approach. For the first time there is a single gateway to the benefit system, and we want to make sure that everyone of working age has the opportunity to find out what help there is to help them to work, if they can work. At the same time, that gives us the opportunity to get more help to people who cannot work.
	We are making the changes because we want to ensure that the help and advice previously available only to people getting jobseeker's allowance are now available to other people of working age, too. During this short debate we have discussed the position of lone parents and people with a disability. In the past the problem was that we did not do nearly enough to ensure that those people got the sort of help that they needed.
	We have heard about the fact that the Disability Rights Commission referred to the labour force survey that shows that there are about 1 million people with a disability who are not in work, but would like to work. If anyone in the House asked us today what we do to ensure that we help those 1 million people, the answer would be that we do not do enough. That is because until now we have never sat down with people, addressed the problems that they faced, and helped people with a disability get back into work.
	I understand some of the difficulties that Members have raised about the availability of jobs, and the fact that we are dealing with people who may have a range of conditions, not just one particular condition. I understand the difficulties, but I say to my hon. Friends and the rest of the House that the Government are prepared to do everything we can to try to help people who for years have been excluded, and have been denied the sort of help that they ought to have had throughout those years.
	That is what the regulations are about—providing help and support. However, that is possible only if we can see people in the first place and tell them what is on offer.

Dennis Skinner: The trouble is that in constituencies such as mine, where the pits and the textile industries have closed—some during the past four or five years—the number of people who are really unemployed, if we count them all, has hardly shifted since 1997. The problem in those areas—the Labour party has identified at least 25 of them—and it is reflected in some of the voting patterns, is that we badly need employment. I made a proposal for about 9,000 jobs on a pit site in Derbyshire. I have been trying to get that show on the road for four years. People say to me that the Government should be finding them work. After meeting those interviewers, in their sharp suits and Italian shoes, and going through the exercise, a lot of people are going to say, "Where are the jobs?" The Government can try as hard as they like in some areas, and it may come to fruition. I do not like the culture that surrounds the proposals but, that notwithstanding, it will be almost impossible to make them work in areas such as mine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put his finger on the point: when unemployment figures, sadly, start to increase generally—I hope that does not happen—the position will get worse.

Alistair Darling: I fully accept the points made by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field): there are real difficulties in some constituencies in some parts of the country, but that does not mean that we should not try to do everything we can to help those people to get into work. For example, there are constituencies in London, such as Tottenham and in Hackney, where unemployment remains extremely high, yet not far away there are employers with acute skill shortages.

Dennis Skinner: indicated assent

Alistair Darling: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees.
	The whole thrust of the Government's policy is to ensure that mechanisms are in place to enable us to match people with those jobs. It is difficult in some parts of the country, but it is important that we try.

Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I should like to make some progress—[Interruption.] If I have time, I shall get back to my right hon. Friend. With due respect, he spoke earlier and I want to deal with some of the points that were raised during the debate.
	The difference between us and the previous Conservative Government is that through measures such as the new deals and the single gateway we are doing far more to meet people and to give them the help and advice they need to get them into work. That is why youth unemployment has come down by 75 per cent. That is why we have got 95,000 lone parents into work. Even in its pilot form, the new deal for disabled people got 40 per cent. of people into work. Most of those people would not be in work had we not been able to offer them the help and support that we are giving them.
	Many Opposition Members asked why we introduced the proposals. The reason is that experience—in particular, through the new deals—has shown that unless we can sit down with people and tell them about the help and support that are available, far too many of them do not know what is on offer. For example, when we set up the new deal for lone parents, we found that when people attended an interview and found out what was available about 89 per cent. joined the new deal. The problem was that the vast majority of people did not go for an interview so they did not know about tax credits, the benefit run-ons for lone parents or the working families tax credit. Unless we can get people to attend an interview so that we can tell them what is on offer, including the help available for those who cannot work, a situation that is intolerable to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whereby a whole generation was written off for year after year after year under the previous Government and given no help, will continue.
	I shall address directly some of the concerns that were expressed in this short debate. The first point is that we must treat individuals as individuals. That is where I have some difficulty with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). She had a good point to make but she spoilt it by over-egging her argument—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) pointed out. I repeat a point that I have made time and again and which is also clear from the guidance and the memorandum that we placed in the Library: we must treat people sensitively. We must avoid a severely disabled person who has no prospect of working and who would gain no benefit from work being alarmed unnecessarily. The hon. Lady must accept that to treat everybody who receives incapacity benefit— or, indeed, everyone who might be affected by the regulations—as though they were completely unable to deal with an interview is wholly unreasonable. I repeat—

Angela Browning: rose—

Alistair Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
	The regulations and guidance issued to our staff make it absolutely clear that, first, there is power to waive or defer interviews and, secondly, contrary to what the hon. Lady said, we will not remove benefit from someone simply because they do not turn up. There are provisions to ensure that we act reasonably at all times. After all, decisions of our staff are subject to appeal, so I do not accept the rather over-argued case that the hon. Lady advanced. She also asked the perfectly good question whether we would treat people sensitively and ensure that our staff were trained; I readily assent to that.

Angela Browning: I did differentiate between certain hypothetical situations. Will the Secretary of State confirm one point? On 23 October, The Independent printed the draft guidelines for officers deciding waivers and deferrals, which provided that deferrals should be used "infrequently" and waivers "very rarely". How does the right hon. Gentleman square those words with the rather sympathetic approach that he is now explaining to the House?

Alistair Darling: I will tell the hon. Lady how I do that. We want to ensure, wherever possible, that everyone of working age, including people on incapacity benefit, is seen, so that we may offer them the appropriate help and support. If we decided at the outset that we would routinely write off large numbers of people and not invite them for interview, that would defeat the object of the exercise.
	I believe that the hon. Lady would accept that it is a minority of people who would not at some stage be able to come in for interview and receive that help and support. I know of her interest in this matter, which has arisen for perfectly understandable reasons that I shall not go into now, and I can understand exactly the type of case that she has in mind, to which I am extremely sympathetic, but I do not accept the argument that our staff should routinely be reluctant to invite people in, because many people who could come in might benefit from that help.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke nonsense about the guidance on suicide, which has applied to our staff for years. As he might imagine, we routinely encounter people in the present benefits system who might be at risk of suicide. The guidelines issued to our staff state very clearly that they should be sensitive. I am very sorry—

David Cameron: rose—

Alistair Darling: I will not give way just now.
	When it comes to scaremongering and upsetting people, the hon. Member for Northavon has done more than his fair share, particularly over the past few days, including the weekend.
	We have introduced powers to waive and to postpone interviews. I hope that that knowledge will allay some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). No one wants our staff or the Government to act unreasonably, but I repeat that we want to ensure that people who would benefit from help and support get it.
	It is important that we avoid the present position, whereby someone can go a considerable time—perhaps years—without help and support. We are now moving to a position where, no matter what benefit people are claiming, their circumstances will be reviewed at least once every three years, to ensure that we do not let people lie for year after year without getting the help and support that they need.
	I hope that when Members consider the regulations tonight, they will see that the Government are acting reasonably and are doing something that Governments should have done years ago. It cannot be right that we leave people with no help or support. It is extremely interesting that, despite the fact that we heard an extremely long speech from the hon. Member for Havant and another from the hon. Member for Northavon, at no point did we hear an alternative approach or a single workable or affordable measure that would help to deal with this difficult problem. In contrast, we can show that over the past four years, through the new deal and other measures, and through the single gateway to the benefits system, we are moving forwards and doing more to help people than ever before. I am determined that we, as a Government, ensure that we help people get back into work wherever possible, as well as offering far more effective support to those who cannot work.
	In that spirit, I hope that the House will endorse the regulations, so that we may help the millions of people denied help for too long in the past.

David Willetts: With the leave of the House, I refer the Secretary of State to the manifesto for disabled people that we published at the general election. The Labour party did not produce a manifesto for disabled people; we did and it contained practical measures to help them, including implementing the points made by the National Audit Office, which one Labour Member rightly raised, about the failure of the present system of medical assessment.
	This measure is another example of a Government who are preoccupied with regulations when the real problem is the delivery of medical assessments, for which there is already ample regulatory and legal provision.
	The Secretary of State has been caught out in a bogus crackdown, trying to spin tough policies. His colleague the Prime Minister was doing so in July. Today, the Secretary of State has had to beat an undignified retreat, abandoning statements that he made on the record in oral questions in attempting to explain the policy launched at the Institute for Public Policy Research.
	We welcome the fact that as a result of our motion we have had this debate. We are certainly committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, people on incapacity benefit are helped into work. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it your wish that the motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 16(1) and 17(2) and Order [20 November 2000].
	The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

European Food Law

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union document no. 14174/00, a draft Council regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food; and supports the Government's objective of the introduction of effective arrangements to re-establish and maintain consumer confidence in the regulation of food safety at European Union level.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate this important measure on the Floor of the House. The Government attach particular importance to the establishment of a European food authority as an aid to re-establishing consumer confidence in the food supply and to making the European Union regulatory process more transparent.
	Proposals were published by the European Commission in November last year and agreement to a common position was reached in the Council in the summer. Several issues that are covered in the proposal have already been debated in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the House of Lords last year during deliberations on the Commission's White Paper on food safety. This proposal cleared scrutiny by the European Union Committee in the Lords in March. All views expressed have been taken into account in the negotiations that were given priority by the Swedish presidency in the first half of the year.
	The European Parliament is considering the Council's common position text. It is likely that the co-decision process will be completed in time to allow formal adoption of the regulation by the end of the year. That would enable the European food authority to be established by early 2002, in line with European Council conclusions.
	The proposal can be broken down into three distinct parts: general food law, establishing a European food authority and dealing with emergencies and procedural food safety issues in the Union. I shall speak briefly about each part.
	The food law element will establish an overarching approach to considering food safety issues at European level by defining general principles, which legislators must take into account when developing European Union and national food law. It also includes requirements for those who produce our food. Some are new general requirements, such as traceability, although specific, detailed traceability requirements already exist in some sectors. Others enhance existing obligations, such as procedures on withdrawal and recall.
	In the United Kingdom, we operate basic safeguards primarily under the Food Safety Act 1990. The Food Standards Agency administers the controls; consumer protection lies at its heart. We are trying to strengthen that concept in Europe and when setting international food standards more generally.
	Although most food law is already subject to harmonised measures throughout the Union, the proposal now better reflects our basic safeguards. That will ensure that the principles of consumer protection and prohibition on placing unsafe food on the market will apply to food legislation throughout the Union.
	We initially expressed preference for a directive, especially given our anxieties about the potential for delaying the establishment of the European food authority. The original proposal was unclear about scope and intent, but the text has been significantly improved in the past six months. In the light of rapid progress, we can support the legislative form of a regulation, which will be directly applicable. Given the similarities, some changes will be required to our primary legislation. However, our high standards on food and public health will not be compromised.
	Although our Food Standards Agency has wide statutory powers, combining all the inherent elements of the risk analysis process—assessment, management and communication—the European food authority will differ because it will be limited to scientific assessment and its communication. The legislation and control elements—risk management—will remain with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. We do not want to change that, but as we stated in the Government response last year, it is essential to recognise the need for effective communication between all those involved in risk analysis. They include the food authority, the Commission and member states. We have achieved recognition of the need for such coherence in the common position text.

David Drew: I am trying to work out how one can split risk assessment and communication from risk management. How will that affect, for example, genetically modified organisms? The criteria overlap on that.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We aim to try to ensure that the role of the European food authority is to draw together the best scientific advice, expertise and evidence. Views based on that evidence should be communicated to those who will have to make decisions about risk management. The processes are different. We want to ensure that those responsible for the decisions make them in the light of the best scientific evidence available in the European Union.
	We believed that it was especially important that, when advising on risk assessment, the food authority should be able to identify options or make recommendations for action to risk managers. They should give a public explanation for any deviation from the authority's recommendations. That would mean not that the food authority would become involved in determining risk management solutions, but that the assessors, with the scientific data at their fingertips, should be able to identify practical solutions. That was our view, but others were not able to support it. That is a missed opportunity, but we note that the proposal still provides for the authority to express and publish its conclusions on matters within its remit.
	I stress that the proposed authority will not be directly responsible for any enforcement or control aspects of legislation. That remains the responsibility of member states under the food and feed control directives, although there are proposals in the pipeline, as the Commission's legislative plan in the White Paper on food safety suggests, to introduce a fully harmonised approach on the matter.
	The authority's remit is also seemingly broad, encompassing animal health and welfare and plant health. Some of those issues could have an impact on food safety, but it is extremely important to ensure that secondary issues do not divert the authority from its principal role of safeguarding food and feed safety. The National Farmers Union told us forcefully that the authority should concentrate on its core remit.
	We have considered carefully the arguments and counter-arguments in regard to whether the authority should be a one-stop shop for all scientific advice, including advice on issues that have a less direct impact on food safety. That has obvious implications for resources, and for the authority's ability to deal with issues directly affecting food safety and the safety of consumers. We are satisfied that the proposed regulation now strikes the right balance in terms of the focus of the authority.
	It is vital that this opportunity to establish a truly innovative approach to the way in which food safety issues are tackled at European level should not be squandered by the establishment of a food authority that is so overburdened that it may not act in a proactive manner, or whose structure dictates that it will not be able to make its voice heard in a truly independent way. We pushed hard for maximum openness and transparency, as well as independence from political influence, for the management board.
	The Commission has stated its preference for its original proposal, which involves four members from the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, but we now see reference to members' being appointed in such a way as to secure the highest possible levels of competence and a broad range of relevant expertise.
	Our European partners have been impressed by the UK's policy of debating important food safety issues in public. We achieved provision in the proposed regulation for the possibility of public meetings of the scientific panels, and the possibility of observers on the panels themselves. Similar points have been made to us effectively by the Consumers Association, which is keen to ensure that the public are involved. We now have more potential for consumer involvement: the original proposal contained no more than a passing reference to contacts with consumers as contained in the original proposal.
	The latest text now better defines the forum's role, ensuring that the authority can tap into the wealth of knowledge residing in member states. That will help to avoid duplication of effort within the EU, and will serve as a mechanism for exchange of information on potential risks and pooling of knowledge.
	The final part of the proposal relates to procedural matters, such as the establishment of a crisis unit, and a mediation procedure, with Commission involvement, in the event of differences of opinion between member states. Those initiatives are particularly welcome in the area of crisis management. Consideration will need to be given to a fast-track procedure, with the authority's active involvement, enabling important decisions to be taken as quickly as possible on the basis of the latest science.
	As I have said, the European Parliament is currently considering the Council's common position text with a view to amendments. The process is still in its early stages. The main issues seem to relate to a greater role in the appointments of the executive director and management board, and a provision that would prevent food business operators from preventing or discouraging anyone from co-operating with the competent authorities when there was a risk to food—a whistleblowing provision. On the latter, we are sympathetic to the principle but are considering the scope and effect. This issue is essentially covered in domestic legislation for employees under the Public Information Disclosure Act 1998.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister say something about the massive power that we are giving the authority to charge fees? What kind of fees will they be, who will determine the size of the fees under article 45, who will determine to whom the fees apply, and to whom can the Government complain if they think that the fees are unfair? Would it not be helpful for us to be given some advice on this new power to levy fees throughout Europe?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I understand that member states already have power to charge fees for the analysis of documents and the submission of dossiers. This is not a new power as such, and we shall therefore need a system ensuring that equity and transparency are involved in the charges and the arrangements generally. Such a system will be developed during the process of establishing the authority.

Simon Burns: I welcome the debate. As the Minister knows, the Scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament recommended that this was an issue of such importance that a debate on the Floor of the House should be devoted to it. I am pleased that that recommendation has been agreed to, and that we are having this debate today.
	In recent years there have been serious problems in the food chain due to BSE, foot and mouth disease, E. coli and dioxin poisoning; there is also a public debate raging about genetically modified foods. The need for a focused and concerted approach to food safety is clear to anyone. It is also abundantly clear that, just as environmental problems do not respect national boundaries, so it is with food safety issues. It is important to have cross-country, cross-border co-operation to ensure the integrity of the food chain and the maintenance of the highest levels of consumer confidence in the food that is consumed.
	I fully accept that there is an important role for Britain to play by co-operating in restoring and maintaining high levels of consumer confidence in food safety, but we must not forget that there is a balance to be struck in achieving this. We must resist the temptation that is often prevalent among Governments of all political parties to impose too many layers of bureaucracy in seeking to deal with a problem. That can lead to institutions being given, in effect, a blank cheque, allowing them to be meddlesome, unnecessarily interfering, officious and harsh in the way in which they go about their duties.
	The motion on the proposed European food authority is a straightforward one, and I welcome the fact that the Minister's speech fleshed out some of the details of the authority, including how it will operate in practice and the principles behind its establishment. However, a number of issues in the proposals need further clarification in the light of the Government's responses to the House of Lords' report on the subject and the Department of Health's explanatory memorandums signed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the Minister.
	Some areas of concern need to be examined further. If the Minister is unable to respond to some of my questions due to lack of time tonight, I should appreciate it if she would write to me to deal with the points that I have raised. It is important to clear these matters up. I have read the mass of papers made available to us by the Vote Office, and some of the detail has been changed through amendments in the European Parliament and through the Commission, so we need to know exactly what is being proposed at the moment.
	The key objectives of the European food authority will be to provide independent scientific advice on food safety and nutrition issues, to identify emerging risks, to operate an extended rapid alert system and to inform the public on all matters within its remit. The key to the success of an effective food authority will be the quality of the scientific advice that it receives. The White Paper published by the Commission states that the organisation is
	"to be the scientific point of reference for the whole Union."
	Rightly, to find the best scientific evidence available, it will be able to seek evidence beyond the European Union if that is appropriate and necessary. Given our experiences, I suspect that on occasion it will be appropriate and necessary for it to go further afield for the best scientific advice—to places such as Australia, the United States, Japan and other nations.
	However, I have a question for the Minister. At the time of the BSE crisis in the mid-1990s, there was considerable conflicting information and seemingly differing scientific evidence. Does the Minister believe that the situation would have been exactly the same if the European food authority had been in place at that time? Because of the unknown nature of BSE when it started to unfold in all its horrors, would we have been in exactly the same position, because there was not enough scientific advice anywhere for us to be able to come up with a straightforward understanding of what exactly was going on in the early stages of that crisis?
	Similarly, as the organisation will be the scientific point of reference for the European Union, it logically follows that it will produce advice that will almost certainly need to be acted upon. There needs to be greater clarification of whether the organisation will primarily be a proactive or a reactive body. It is a potential conflict that will have to be resolved at the outset if one wishes to avoid tensions and pressures that will undermine its efficiency and effectiveness.
	The organisation's remit has been described as strikingly broad, including food safety, nutrition, plant health, animal health and animal welfare. The Minister referred to that strikingly broad remit, but with any body that has a broad remit, there is a danger that it will lose sight of its main objective. In this case, its main objective is to provide and to help advance food safety.
	The National Farmers Union has written to hon. Members in anticipation of the debate. To be fair, the NFU broadly supports the establishment of the EFA, but it has expressed a concern that I think is genuine: the EFA must be focused, have a specific remit and not be diverted by issues that are only vaguely linked to food safety. It has given an example to back that concern: environmental or consumer issues that are not strictly speaking related to food safety. Does the Minister have any view on how the problem can be avoided where an overzealous EFA, for whatever reason, is sidetracked on to issues that are only loosely connected to food issues, is waylaid and goes beyond its true remit of food safety? The danger cannot be dismissed lightly. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter and has an answer on how to try to stop that problem emerging.

Teddy Taylor: Knowing his strength and determination, I am delighted to see my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, but surely we cannot ask the Minister to make sure that that does not happen. She will have no power to do that, bearing in mind that all the people on the authority must be independent and totally outside the control and direction of any national Government. Surely he should not ask the Minister to do something that she cannot do.

Simon Burns: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for his kind and typically generous comments. I also fully understand his genuine concern about the Minister's lack of powers. Perhaps I did not make my plea as clear as it should have been but, given that all the necessary proposals to establish the EFA have not yet been concluded, and given that the Minister, through the Government, still has an opportunity to persuade her ministerial colleagues in the European Parliament and the European Commission to fine-tune any parts of the proposals as necessary, if she agrees with the point that I have just outlined I hope she will use her influence to that effect.
	Another area of concern is the harmonisation between member states. The NFU has raised the problem of the variation in quality and safety that third countries can exploit when sending produce into a member state. The produce is often prepared and wrapped as if it were the produce of that member state. Is the Minister in a position to give any clarification or reassurance that the EFA will implement the European rules and directives to ensure a common standard that will harmonise food safety across the EU and put an end to such imbalances. The problem has persisted for far too long and it needs addressing. Another related issue that will be crucial to the success of this authority is surveillance and enforcement.
	I understand that surveillance will be conducted through a dual process—by member states and in addition by the EFA. There have been examples of poor quality or utter failures in surveillance by certain member states. The most glaring recent example involved Germany's failure in regard to the import of beef with spinal cords. How will the EFA stop or improve those unacceptable situations?
	Perhaps surprisingly, enforcement is not part of the remit of the EFA, but rests with the European Commission. I wonder whether that is the most satisfactory or competent arrangement. The other place has recommended that Food and Veterinary Office functions should be brought together with those of the EFA. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Government now think that that might improve enforcement once the authority is up and running.
	As the Minister will know, the Lords Select Committee has also recommended that the EFA should have explicit powers to offer opinions on the effectiveness of member states' monitoring and enforcement systems. That suggestion has many merits and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will look at it again with a view to seeking to influence the EU, the EC and the European Parliament to move on this issue. I have found in many walks of life that one way to concentrate the mind when effective action is needed is for a body to look into what is going on, reach a decision on what the standards should be and, in effect, name and shame organisations or individuals that are failing.
	Unfortunately, there have been far too many examples in recent years of some member states interpreting the rules of the club to their own advantage, rather than correctly. The glaring example is that of the French cocking a snook at the rules over British beef and, so far, getting away with it. It is not satisfactory for the Commission to be the enforcing officer. We need a far more vigorous system in place to ensure that all member states enforce the rules equally so that no one is disadvantaged.
	I wonder whether the proposal to split risk management and risk assessment between the EFA and the Commission, unlike in our system, in which both responsibilities reside with the Food Standards Agency, is sensible. When the Government introduced the Food Standards Agency, they clearly believed that the most effective system was to have both functions within the remit of one agency. I assume that they spotted the fundamental difference in the European proposals. I do not know whether they made representations and were unsuccessful, or whether they took their eye off the ball. If it was the former, I am sorry that their influence did not carry the day, because I believe that they were right in what they did here.
	Does the Minister feel that splitting the functions could lead to conflict between the authority and the Commission? Not having them under the same umbrella could lead to tensions that could mean that the system does not work as effectively or efficiently as intended.
	I want to ask about an issue of great importance to hundreds of thousands of individuals and organisations that is raised in the Minister's explanatory memorandum of 11 October. When her predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, published her memorandum before the general election, it said—I make no criticism, as it was a reasonable statement at that time—that it was too soon to come up with any realistic figures or suggestions on the extent of the impact of the proposals on British agriculture, commerce and industry.
	Since then, the Minister has published another memorandum, in which, because events have moved on, she has been in a better position to give an idea of compliance costs. Annexe A of the Department of Health's partial regulatory impact assessment gives an estimate of the number of businesses that the Government anticipate will be affected by the proposals. The figures are quite significant: it is estimated that 63,000 farmers, 405 farm animal feed producers and approximately 612,000 food business establishments will be affected. However, even as recently as 11 October, the Department of Health was still unable to produce a guesstimate for the compliance costs. The legislation will have a significant impact on the whole agriculture sector and the food industry, and it would be helpful if the Government would publish their guesstimates—or their estimates, if they are more confident of those—of the compliance costs as soon as they are able to do so.
	The explanatory memorandum also deals with whistleblowing. The European Parliament's environment committee is trying to come up with some sensible and workable proposals on this issue and it would seem that the Government are sympathetic to the principle that food business operators should not prevent or discourage anyone from co-operating with competent authorities if there is a possible risk to food. I assume that the Government are working with the European Parliament on workable proposals to protect whistleblowers who have information that should be passed to authorities to prevent threats to the food chain and food safety.
	As the Minister knows, the House has a considerable interest in the development and improvement of food labelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject last year and, in a few weeks' time, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will introduce his private Member's Bill on food labelling. In the debate on 3 March 2000 on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—the then Minister—was not minded to support the legislation because it fell for determination within the European remit, rather than that of our national Government and this House. I am not convinced that that is accurate, but if the EFA is to have a responsibility in all areas of food safety, food labelling is an important issue. Consumers have the right to know certain things about the food that they purchase or consume. Any extension of food labelling should consider the issue of the nutritional value of food. Can the Minister tell us whether in this Parliament we can extend the food labelling proposals? If not, will the new authority be able to do something to afford greater protection and more information to consumers, which they should have as a right?
	I have raised a number of issues on which the House needs more information concerning this far-reaching change in the existing regime for ourselves and our European partners in terms of the way in which we seek to protect and defend the integrity of the food chain.The debate is time limited and I fully understand that the Minister—who is helpful—will not have time to answer all the points that I raised. If she would write to me on those matters with which she cannot deal in the debate, I would be very grateful.

David Drew: I do not intend to detain the House, but I wish to speak on this important issue. For those of us interested in the evolution of food policy, this is another step along the road. I will not counter what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said on food labelling or on the Bill on that subject, which I shall be supporting a week on Friday and which I want to become law.
	I wish to make three points: first, the role of the Food Standards Agency in relation to the European food authority; secondly, what the proposal may do in terms of food imports; and, thirdly, food labelling. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made a valid point when he asked whether the agency would be proactive or reactive. One of the best aspects of the agency—an organisation in its infancy—is that it has sought to investigate, research and communicate with the general public.
	I had the fortune to accompany my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) a couple of weeks ago when the agency held an open meeting. It was good to see that the agency was trying to engage with the general public on issues that matter to them. Food issues do matter. Anyone who wants a good discussion—not disregarding the subject of international terrorism—should mention food and people will put in their threepenny-worth.
	It is not usually my inclination to be pro-European, but I can see the value in setting up such a European authority. However, I would not want the nature of the Food Standards Agency to be lost by being merged into something flaccid and regulatory, rather than innovatory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a clear indication that we will encourage the agency to pursue its exciting role in education, health and communication.
	I would like to know how the European food authority will engage with issues such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, which clearly have a pan-European importance. It is not just Britain that is struggling with scrapie and BSE in sheep; the TSE issue is something that Europe as a whole must face. There is the possibility of conflict between scientists of different nations—something we have grown used to. Scientists will give their honest and best advice on whatever issue they are asked to comment. For example, the findings of French scientists on British beef were different from the findings of scientists in the rest of Europe. They may have been looking at slightly different questions, but I want to know how the problem will pan out. We have to be aware that it could cause difficulties for the EFA. Any comments from my hon. Friend the Minister will be closely scrutinised.
	I have been pursuing in Europe the question of embedded items in food. Such items have been banned in the United States, but in this country we still allow them in chocolate eggs and other foods. I was lucky enough to hold an Adjournment debate on the matter some time ago. How will the EFA deal with that issue?
	I come now to the other two matters that I wish to raise. It is clear that food imports are one of the issues of the moment, and the number of written questions on the subject show that we are examining import controls in this country. Imports from third countries have been mentioned, so how will the UK tighten up on imports, given that we will be taking more of a pan-European approach? The National Farmers Union inquiry into import controls raises questions about the co-ordination and effectiveness of what is going on. I hope that the EFA will have a role in getting rid of some of the substandard products that arrive in this country and end up on our shelves.
	Finally, it has been established that consumers want food labelling. The forthcoming Bill on food labelling has yet to be published so I cannot comment on it, but although its predecessor had some merit it also had some problems. Not least of those was the fact that the European Court was likely to rule against it on the advice of Ministers. We need some clarification on whether matters have moved on since then, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford hoped.
	It would be good to know that we are able to deal with the principle and the practicalities of food labelling. People need to know that they are buying what is listed on the label. If they want more detail, they should be able to get it from a database. That is now possible, and it is just a matter of getting the delivery right. This country wants to tighten up in this area, and it will be interesting to see what the EFA may have to say on the matter.
	I largely welcome the draft regulation, although I agree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that we need further clarification of some matters. We should do all we can to make our food safer and better, and information about it more accessible. The draft regulation seems to be moving in that direction, and so can only be a good thing—even though some hon. Members want a national entity working in the areas to which I have alluded.

Colin Breed: I agree with earlier speakers that this debate is important and timely. The development of food policy and consumers' interest in the food that they eat, its safety and how it is produced, will command attention both in the House and outside it. Perhaps more people outside the House will be interested in the subject than hon. Members, judging by attendance for this debate.
	Food safety issues are increasingly important, and the international aspect of the food production and processing chain is growing. We have to ensure that there is genuinely free movement of goods in the single internal market, but we must also recognise that there are clear problems and risks associated with food imports. However difficult it may be, we must try to establish some basic principles with regard to what food safety, nationally and internationally, really means.
	First, the regulation needs to cover the whole of the food chain, across all the food sectors and between all the member states. If it is to work properly, it will have to be drawn up very carefully. Secondly, we must establish where responsibility truly rests within the chain and which authorities are competent to monitor and enforce matters. Having read through all the papers, I do not think that that has been made abundantly clear. Thirdly, we need to set up real traceability of feed and food. The process must be transparent and the risk analysis must have credibility based on clear science. Again, there seems to be a problem regarding where the scientific advice is established and deciding how it is to be used between the European food authority and the Food Standards Agency.
	We greatly supported the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, which has made an important contribution to the process. However, it is still in its infancy and has as yet to command the unquestioning public confidence that it will need if its pronouncements are to have authority. Regrettably, some of the recent comments about BSE in sheep have not added to the FSA's credibility.
	We need to extend this area into a European dimension to protect public health and restore consumer confidence now that food processing and trade has become more international. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, labelling will be crucial to the exercise. It was pointed out last year that our ability to introduce labelling will be subject to European involvement. Will the EFA's remit cover proactive involvement in labelling?
	As the Minister mentioned, the EFA's establishment also provides the opportunity to divide the responsibilities of risk assessment from risk management. However, it is not clear to me nor, I believe, to some other speakers whether that distinction is vital to the ability to control food safety or whether it will be divisive and a means by which national food standards agencies can conflict with the European food authority. They need to be complementary, not contradictory.
	There is a need to take measures to safeguard food imports from third countries, and it was brought home to me when I visited Felixstowe a few months ago. People there were obliged to accept descriptions and paperwork from European imports of food that had been imported from third countries. There is no doubt that we are all exposed to the weakest European Union border and its control and enforcement of what can ultimately arrive on our shores and on to our plates.
	For the EFA to be successful, it must display true independence and be free of any commercial or political pressures. That will be one of its most important and, perhaps, difficult tasks. There could always be a suspicion that political influences and expediencies as well as commercial pressures—perhaps even via bodies such as the World Trade Organisation—may have an undue influence on its pronouncements. It must be open and transparent in its dealings with the public. For it to have respect and credibility, its science and evidence must be rooted in cross-border national scientific bodies.
	It is essential that the European Commission and the European food authority evidence is always made available to the European Parliament. It is no good if pronouncements are taken to the Commission and decisions are made on evidence that is not freely and transparently available. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when we make our views known to the European Union, we will say that that transparency should be an important part of the way in which a European food authority will operate.
	I agree that it is rather dangerous to extend the remit too far by including food risks, nutritional issues, animal health and welfare, environmental protection and suchlike, and so lose the focus. None the less, it has become clear that we want many of those issues to be included in the round of World Trade Organisation talks. It would be interesting to know whether the EFA will participate on behalf of the European Union, or whether its advice will be part of any EU involvement in the talks. If so, the EFA must have some involvement in and knowledge of animal welfare and environmental issues.
	There has been comment about the costs of the exercise. We do not know precisely how much the EFA will cost, let alone what it will cost individual farms, food processors, businesses and shops. It would behove the European Union to give clear guidance on what the costs are likely to be. The public will not be too impressed if we merely accept something with a huge potential cost that could fall on our farmers, our agriculture industries, our retailers and our food processors.
	For far too long, the general public have not been fully engaged in understanding or even accepting much of Europe, but if the consumer is to be king and is to be properly involved, and if there is to be proper consultation and public discussion, rather than pronouncements being received from on high, here is a real opportunity for the public to be involved in an area of policy in which they are directly interested. It behoves all hon. Members to ensure that there is proper public debate and that our constituents are involved in food policy, especially the way in which it affects our relationship with Europe.
	A few concerns remain. Some of them have been aired already, but I would like to repeat them. How will the proposed EFA and the national food safety bodies—in our case, the Food Standards Agency—relate to each other? How will we ensure that they do not duplicate each other's work? If disputes arise, as they are almost bound to, how will mediation work? Who will come out on top in the end? That must be clear. Will the national body be sovereign in its own state, or will the EFA have the last word?
	How will the division of responsibility for risk assessment and management work in practice, especially if there are differing scientific views? How will we be protected from the danger that regulatory decisions may be influenced and taken on overtly political grounds rather than on grounds of real agreed science? How will we ensure that in all member states the EFA has the credibility to be able to make clear decisions without undue influence being exercised? Finally, as I have said, we need to know precisely how the authority will be funded.
	Those are legitimate concerns, but there is an overriding need to move on. The last time this subject was debated, my hon. Friends voted against the motion, but matters have now moved on and become more urgent. Unless we address the concerns that remain, many of which have been raised this evening, we will not get it right. At the time, we believed that it would have been appropriate for the EFA to grow out of the national food standards bodies in each member state, so that they would have a stake in how it was being formed and how it would operate and be regulated. We are now proposing to put it on top, before some member states have even established their own food standards agencies. We should realise that there could be difficulties that will need to be overcome. Despite that, we give the measure broad support in the hope that the EFA will be successful and that public food policy, and food safety in particular, will be enhanced by it.

Teddy Taylor: I have a few questions and I hope that I shall get some answers.
	I was glad to hear the thoughtful and challenging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). He talked about the transfer of power to this European organisation. Bearing it in mind that this is an important issue that will cost much public money and involve a substantial transfer of power, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether it will make the slightest difference whether we vote for or against the motion. I hesitate to mention voting because my party has recently made it clear that we do not want to vote on anything, but I should like to establish the point.
	My first point is that there is much undue optimism and hopefulness about the establishment of this massive new body. Instead of discussing how to set up this huge new organisation, which will overshadow organisations that are already working well, would it not be infinitely better for Britain, and for Europe, to set up an organisation to consider the basic problem of over-production of food?
	I ask that question because the Minister may have noticed that on Friday I received a written answer that described the success of the European Union in destroying food. I found to my astonishment that last year 269,000 tonnes of apples were destroyed at public expense, as were 255,000 tonnes of peaches, 229,000 tonnes of oranges and much more besides. Well over 1 million tonnes of food were destroyed at public expense when we have already paid farmers a great deal of public money to produce it. Is there not a danger of over-optimism? What will this new organisation be able to do that is not already being done by our national organisations?
	Secondly, how much power will be transferred? The report of the European Scrutiny Committee notes:
	"whilst the present system had . . . functioned well, there needed to be a comprehensive and integrated approach to food safety"—
	and that, although responsibility was not exclusive to the Community—
	"all aspects needed to be addressed at Community level".
	It strikes me that there will be a substantial transfer of power to the EU and that, once it goes, our Parliament, our Government and the European Parliament will have no control over what happens: total independence will be given to the organisation.
	The organisation's remit will cover matters such as animal health. What powers will it have on that? For example, if it thought that the conditions in which calves were kept in, for example, like Holland were deplorable, shocking and disgraceful, what could it do about it? People who are concerned about animal welfare will be especially interested to learn from the Minister about the powers that the organisation will have to deal with nasty or cruel conditions.
	Thirdly, I want to ask about the power to charge fees, which is another substantial power being given to the organisation. In three years, it will be able to charge fees for any of its services. If British food producers, farmers or shopkeepers thought that the costs and fees were unfair or unreasonable, what exactly could they do about it? My understanding is that once the organisation has decided on its fees, there is nothing that we can do about them.
	Fourthly, will the Government have any power or control over the organisation? The proposed article 37 includes the words:
	"The members of the Management Board, the members of the Advisory Forum and the Executive Director shall undertake to act independently in the public interest".
	That means that they should not be subject to any political controls. Is it a fact that that organisation, once established, is fully independent and cannot be controlled in any way?
	Fifthly, where will the organisation be located? It is most unusual to have before us a motion that does not allow us to decide anything that sets up an expensive new organisation in an unknown location. Of all the European organisations, such as banks, that have been established, hardly any have come to the United Kingdom. Has it been decided where this organisation will be located, and if not, who will decide?
	Sixthly, I want to ask about the costs. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said that there was no indication of costs, but there are a good many references to them in the papers that we have been given. Paragraph 27 of the explanatory memorandum, headed "Financial implications", says that the start-up costs were to be £5.4 million, the annual costs initially £14.9 million and the running costs thereafter £26.6 million. Is that a realistic projection? Will we in fact spend £26.6 million after spending the £5.4 million, and will the costs be kept under control? My feeling is that, like all the Euro-ventures, it will probably end up costing a great deal more.
	Seventhly, I want to ask the Minister about media, because the legislation and papers refer to the organisation's setting up a substantial media organisation. If the British Parliament, the British Government, the European Parliament or any other democratic body thought that the organisation was using its media consultants and staff—which are provided for in the legislation referred to in paragraphs 23 and 23.1 of the Government response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, headed "Risk communication and relations with the media"—to put out information that they regarded as unsatisfactory, untruthful or misleading, what power would our Government have over the organisation? My understanding is that they would have none.
	Eighthly, what controls will the organisation have over imports? All the written answers on imports make it abundantly clear that as a result of our chronic problem of over-production of everything in Europe, which is getting a great deal worse, there is massive pressure to try to restrict and control imports. I do not feel a special obligation in that respect because I consider that we have a responsibility to other countries that produce excellent food to high standards that the consumers of Britain like to consume.
	I always buy New Zealand butter because I know that it is produced in a country where standards are high, and the knowledge that it is produced without subsidies adds to my enjoyment when I eat it. I would be very upset if I felt that our European so-called friends were going to have the power to restrict or control imports from such countries. I simply ask the Minister, if, for example, the new organisation said, "Because of a specific plant or flower, we take the view that New Zealand butter is unacceptable" because we have too much butter of our own, what could New Zealand, the British Government or consumers who wanted to consume it do?
	I am afraid that I have been a bore about this over the years, but in Europe we have set up a number of organisations over which we and our democratic bodies have no control, but in respect of which we have expressed undue hope and optimism. I found that that was the case when I had the pleasure of being a member of the Treasury Committee—although I misbehaved—for a brief period and visited Germany and France.
	I met the business communities there to discuss the single currency. They all thought that everything was going to be wonderful. The Germans were delightful people. They said, "We've got a rubbish Government and, unfortunately, rubbish Opposition but once we get the single currency everything will be sorted out."
	The French were even nicer, although they seemed to drink a little more. They said that they had a mad Government who were, unfortunately, introducing a 35-hour week, but that all that would stop once they had the single currency. In the continent of Europe, they seem to think that anything new and any new power, such as the food authority, will bring benefits that they simply do not bring.
	Another strange aspect of the matter is that on page 18, the document uses the words
	"to be open to . . . public scrutiny".
	That influenced me a great deal. Will the Minister say how the body will be open to public scrutiny? If my constituents, the Confederation of British Industry or some organisation in my constituency wanted to find out more about it, how would they do so? She will be well aware that organisations set up under the European Union are not open to public scrutiny.
	For example, on financial controls, the Minister will be aware of the horrific news the other day that for six years the Court of Auditors has not approved the EU accounts. The way in which the money is being spent should be a matter of concern.
	I do not wish to speak for too long as other hon. Members want to contribute, although the motion does not matter and it will not make the slightest difference what we say about this or any other matter relating to the European Union. What benefit will result from this measure? Are we not simply transferring powers that were effectively controlled and managed and that could be altered and adjusted as we thought appropriate?
	I was interested to hear all the talk about labelling. Hon. Members must know that although we propose private Members' Bills, the system is a load of codswallop. We do not have the power or control. Although we can let people put "Made in England" on goods, we cannot demand, under European laws, that it be stated that something is made in Germany, France or Portugal.
	There is a danger that we think that we have powers that we do not have. Tonight we are simply transferring more power for something that will be of no good purpose. We are setting up an organisation that we cannot control. It will be wholly independent and outside democratic control and it will cost us a great deal of money. We are transmitting far more powers than we contemplate. The measure is a great mistake. I think that we could press the matter to a vote, but bearing in mind the views of the Conservative party—we do not want to vote on anything—I will not do so. We certainly should make it clear that we regret the measure and are concerned about it.

Peter Atkinson: I could probably disagree with one or two statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I understand that we are discussing a take-note motion, but it gives us an opportunity to debate an extremely serious issue.
	I also disagree with my hon. Friend about New Zealand farming. It is true that subsidies were stopped for farming there, but other subsidies still exist and there are also questions of marketing and processing to consider. When the agriculture recession hit New Zealand, the majority of farmers were on some form of benefit payment. To say that when he spreads his butter on his wholemeal bread for breakfast, he is eating unsubsidised butter may not be true. It is good butter, however. Furthermore, in New Zealand grass grows for 11 months of the year, which gives their farmers a slight advantage over hill farmers in the north of England. That is why vulnerable farms here need some form of assistance.
	As always with such European issues, we are ill at ease because we do not know where we shall be at the end of the process. We do not even really know the route that has been proposed. Those of us who have lived through such things in the past know only too well that what starts as an apparently beneficial and useful idea ends up being costly and complicated for those who become involved. For example, the EU directive on abattoirs was printed on two sides of A4 paper, but by the time that it had been fully implemented, the United Kingdom's slaughtering industry had been virtually wiped out because of it. I always embark on such things with a certain trepidation.
	Having said that, I do not disagree with the proposals on the European food authority. However, I should be grateful to the Minister if she would tell us her views on the House of Lords recommendations. Unlike my hon. Friend, I think that the value of the EFA would be its independence. The House of Lords recommended:
	"the EFA should have explicit powers to offer opinions on the effectiveness of Member States' monitoring and surveillance systems, and in turn on the adequacy and consistency of food safety enforcement activity across the European Union."
	The EFA would represent an important development if it were to have that power because, as has been said, it is feared that substandard food gets into the EU through its weakest border. We know that some EU countries pay little attention to what food comes into their countries because they know that it is simply in transit from their port of entry to other parts of Europe. If the EFA could flag up that issue, it would do the EU and its nations a service.
	I appreciate that the Minister will want some time to answer the questions that have been asked, so I shall briefly explore the detail of two other matters that were mentioned by the National Farmers Union in its briefing and by hon. Members, the first of which is how much the EFA can stray into dangerous areas. The NFU suggests that as
	"pesticides or additives . . . may involve risks to the environment or to the safety of workers, some environmental and worker protection aspects should also be assessed by the Authority in accordance with the relevant legislation."
	We need to clarify exactly what powers the EFA will have to deal with such issues.
	The same applies to genetically modified organisms, because the NFU suggests that the EFA will have a view on GMOs, and the EFA's expert views may well contrast with those of individual nation states. Certain people in the United Kingdom are highly nervous about genetic modification, whereas I am pleased to say that people in other parts of Europe take a more robust view and think that genetic modification is a good thing. I agree with that view; I am one of the few people who think that it is a thoroughly good science that should be encouraged.
	Secondly, I want to say something about plant and animal health and welfare. That does not form part of the EFA proposals, but it is dealt with in the general food law section of the EU document. Again, interesting anomalies could arise between different countries. The Minister may or may not be aware that, for example, the use of stalls and tethers in pig rearing was abolished unilaterally in the United Kingdom. That obviously caused considerable additional costs for our pork producers, but stalls and tethers were not outlawed in Denmark. If the objective was to rule that the use of stalls and tethers was satisfactory because they were not prohibited in other European countries, what recourse would United Kingdom farmers, who could no longer use them, have to compensation for being put at a disadvantage?
	When organisations such as the EFA start to deal with health and food safety issues, there is scope for costs to increase greatly and for the market to be distorted in consequence.

David Drew: It is a question of persuading the Danes to bring their animal welfare standards up to those of this country. That is the way to approach the matter.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Danes may argue that there is no welfare problem with the practice. If that were endorsed Europe wide, our pig farmers would have the right to challenge it.
	I would be interested to hear more detail about the issues that I have mentioned if the Minister can provide it in the time available. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that much more has been raised than she can deal with in her reply. We have had an interesting debate. I hope that we have shone a little light—clearly not enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East—on what could be a complex and important issue.

Hazel Blears: With the leave of the House, I shall reply.
	There have been several extremely well informed and expert contributions to the debate. I for one have certainly learned some interesting new information. I shall do my best to respond to the questions that have been raised, but if I am unable to cover one or two of them, I shall certainly reply to hon. Members in writing.
	The hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wondered whether the European food authority would be a new layer of European bureaucracy. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford was concerned that it would become unduly meddlesome, unnecessarily interfering and an extra burden on us. I reassure him that there is absolutely no intention that the EFA will become a bureaucratic body. In fact, it will rationalise much of the scientific information available in Europe. I understand that, at the moment, there are eight separate scientific committees advising the European Union on a range of issues. The proposal is for six different scientific committees and one overarching committee, so that there is unity and coherence in the system. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Burns: To reassure the Minister, I was saying that a balance must be struck. All too often, organisations set up by Governments become bureaucratic, but I was not saying that the EFA necessarily would. We must ensure that it does not.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for what I take to be support for the organisation. The issue is important. In this case, the proposal is about bringing together mechanisms to try to ensure that we do not duplicate our activity but draw added value from pooling our scientific knowledge.
	Other hon. Members raised the issue of the coherence of the system and member states' input into the EFA. I reassure them that the advisory forum will comprise representatives of all member states—from the Food Standards Agency in our case and from similar institutions in other member states. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to pool expertise and knowledge while at the same time maintaining a connection with local institutions. The EFA will not, as it has been alleged, sit on top of member states' institutions. It will be a partner in a network. It is a key issue for us that the EFA is not about overlapping of layers but about added value.
	The quality of scientific advice has been mentioned. That is also a key issue. If the organisation is to have credibility not just in the European Community but internationally, it must draw together the very best scientists. We intend to draw on opinions from outside the EU as well as from within it to amass the best science possible. The key to the credibility of the institution is putting all that information in the public domain so that people can make informed choices. Therefore, the EFA will make a tremendous contribution.
	Hon. Members asked whether the authority will be proactive or reactive. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made some important points about the proactive nature of our Food Standards Agency, which holds hearings, involves the public and is developing a new approach. I am pleased to say that the European authority will play a proactive role. It will be able to take up matters that are in its remit; it will not simply react to events, but explore what goes on in the wider community.
	I said in my opening remarks that we want to ensure that the EFA's remit is tight, with a core focus on food and food safety. Other issues, such as animal welfare and plant health, impinge on food safety, but we have managed to amend the mission statement for the authority so that its role is limited to providing scientific opinion on the other issues when they have no bearing on food or feed. That will occupy no more than 5 per cent. of the authority's overall work. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that the EFA's remit is focused on food safety, not other matters.
	Hon. Members asked about tightening country of origin labelling. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East is clearly knowledgeable about that and holds strong opinions. We are pressing for changes to the rules to provide clear, unambiguous country of origin labelling. We appreciate that consumers want improvements in labelling, and it is a priority for us. The Food Standards Agency is about to review current guidance to ascertain whether we can toughen it. It is clearly important to the public.
	I was asked whether, had the EFA existed, it could have identified the problems of BSE. It is difficult to speculate about that time, when little knowledge was available. I was also asked whether the EFA could have prevented the French from banning British beef. I should like to believe that the advisory forum, which will comprise member states, could have met to share knowledge and expertise and work for consensus. The action by the French was illegal and is a matter for the European Court. However, I like to believe that when we can share knowledge and expertise maturely, we can prevent such difficulties from arising.

Colin Breed: On that basis, there will be no change. If the EFA pronounces on a matter, the member state can simply ignore it and carry on regardless.

Hazel Blears: Yes, but I hope that, in a system whereby everybody is engaged and has a stake in the process, people will share information and expertise and reach a consensus. If not, the EFA could not prevent people from taking unilateral action.
	Cost and compliance were mentioned. There are high level proposals for traceability; people will have to record where they buy a product and to whom they sell it. The majority of businesses make some record, for example, of an invoice or a VAT return. Consequently, there are no new specific requirements to fill in forms; there is no increased bureaucracy, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East will be delighted to know. It is simply a matter of recording in the way that businesses already operate. We have held extensive consultations with small and medium-sized enterprises and were assured that compliance costs for business can be met.
	Let us consider the EFA's involvement in nutrition. It will play a role in functional foods, babyfoods and so on, but its purpose is not to run campaigns on healthy eating. Those are matters for member states, which must decide what they wish to promote. Its purpose is not to harmonise so that all member states have homogenous food and diets. All of us who enjoy consuming different European food must strive to maintain its diversity.
	The debate has been interesting because genuine tensions have been expressed. Some hon. Members said that the EFA should be independent and robust if it is to have integrity and credibility, while the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East wants to control it and ensure that politicians determine its actions. In our negotiations, we have striven to push forward the boundaries of openness and transparency to try to ensure an element of public scrutiny. That does not accord with traditions in some other countries, and it is fair to say that the Food Safety Agency and our approach take a lead on involving the public and consumers. That is the right way forward. If this body, whose aim will be to bring together the sources of the very best science, is to have credibility and re-establish consumers' confidence in their food, it is crucial for it to be seen as being able to say things without fear or favour on the basis of the scientific evidence before it.
	The cost will be 24.9 million euros initially, rising to 44 million after three years. No extra funding will be needed: I understand that provision has already been made. As for location, there are currently bids for Barcelona, Helsinki, Parma and Lille. The Government have not taken a view of the appropriate location; each will be considered on its merits.
	Media provision is important. Obviously the public will want to know that information is being disseminated widely, and that they know what is emerging from the scientific committees.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—indeed, I think all hon. Members—mentioned the division between risk assessment and risk management, which will clearly be a fundamental issue for the authority. The authority's purpose is to provide advice in order to inform the development of policy, and there is a clear difference between those two roles. If a new authority had a complete remit, without leaving member states or the Commission any role, we would risk creating a monolithic approach without the necessary flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of individual states.
	The whole debate has concerned getting the balance right between independence and credibility—balancing control and advice, and achieving balance between the parts of the authority that will need to act and the basis on which such action should be informed. Such considerations are important, but I believe that the balance is right.
	Third-country imports have been mentioned. That, too, is an important issue: consumers want to know that they can rely on the information that is available. I believe that the Food and Veterinary Office makes regular enforcement visits and gives regular guidance on the matter.
	I entirely understand the commitment of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East to these issues. Let me encourage him to be a little more optimistic, and not to assume that this institution will not make a difference. It will make a difference: it will bring together the best scientific knowledge that we have.
	It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).
	Question agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union document no. 14174/00, a draft Council regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food; and supports the Government's objective of the introduction of effective arrangements to re-establish and maintain consumer confidence in the regulation of food safety at European Union level.

CERVICAL CANCER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. Let me begin by summarising what I want to say before developing my arguments.
	The cervical cancer screening programme has performed an enormously valuable service in this country over the years. Tens of thousands of women's lives have been saved by it. However, it is now running up against technical limitations. Advances are being made in the science and the application of testing—especially human papilloma virus testing—that are not yet operating in the United Kingdom. I know that the Government are conducting pilot studies, but my purpose is to bring a sense of urgency to the process, and to ask whether it can be accelerated.
	I have a personal and a broader reason for doing this. Earlier in the summer I lost my wife, whom I loved very much, to cancer. As it happens it was breast cancer rather than cervical cancer, but obviously, having been through that experience, I want to ensure that all that can possibly be done will be done to stop women's lives being cut short prematurely. My wife received superb NHS treatment in the Royal Marsden hospital, as many women do. The fact is, however, that lives are being lost, and we must do anything that we can to stop that.
	There is a growing campaign to focus attention on the possibilities of human papilloma virus testing. It is now a Europe-wide campaign, and some Ministers, parliamentary colleagues and European colleagues are involved in it. It is sufficiently well developed that, earlier this year, I had 5,000 separate letters from women in my constituency alone, pressing for action on this matter. There is a growing consciousness of the issue, and a growing sense of frustration at the slow progress that is being made.
	I shall explain why the issue is important. Cervical cancer is a major cancer in women—the second most important for younger women. The incidence of the disease in the United Kingdom is above average in European terms. Morbidity from the disease has been falling, which clearly reflects the success of the screening programme, but it has, until recently, been rising among younger women, which reflects some growing difficulties.
	The key point about this disease, as opposed to many other cancers, is that it is exceptionally amenable to early treatment. I believe that 80 per cent. of women whose cervical cancer is detected early survive, which is a very high rate. That is why the issue of screening is so important.
	Smear testing in the United Kingdom has a long history—I think that it was first introduced in the 1940s. It has been well developed in this country, and I think that we are still the only European country with a full national screening programme. It is to the credit of the NHS and the Government that they introduced it and made it work. There have been considerable success stories along the way. As I mentioned, probably tens of thousands of women are alive who would not be if they had not been screened using smear tests.
	However, it became apparent a few years ago that there have been limitations. This was all brought to a head in the 1998 report by the Public Accounts Committee, which revealed the many limitations of the screening programme that were beginning to pile up. These included human fallibility, lack of staffing, failures in the cytology process, numerous cases of litigation against the NHS—in particular, scandals associated with hospitals such as the Kent and Canterbury hospital—and so on.
	The Government have addressed these issues, and I do not want to dwell on them. This is part of the history of the smear test as it has developed, and the limitations are now reasonably well understood, in terms of the lack of training, the lack of staff numbers among cytologists, and the fact that a significant number of women are still being missed by the test, many of whom are on low incomes or in ethnic minority groups.
	I do not want to dwell on those issues, however. I want to focus on the particular problems associated with the testing itself. The problem is that the smear test is highly imperfect. Even the most optimistic assessments judge that 20 per cent. of the tests are wrong. There is some argument about whether it is 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 40 per cent., but substantial numbers of women who are tested and found to be clear none the less develop the disease. That is due to the limitations of the technology.
	I believe that about 1,200 women a year die from cervical cancer, despite the screening process. About half those women have been fully tested—in other words, they participated fully in the screening process and there were no failures by the people carrying out the tests. What has happened has been due simply to a deficiency in the technology. That is the issue on which we need to focus.
	In recent years, there has been a growing understanding of what causes the disease. Uniquely among cancers, it is caused by a virus, known as the human papilloma virus or HPV. There is also a growing understanding that the virus can be detected. When I started researching this debate, I was surprised at the extent to which that was well known years ago. Professor Jack Cusick, one of the leading practitioners from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, was publishing on this subject in the British cancer journals in about 1994 and 1995. We are not dealing with entirely new science. We are dealing with science that is well known and well understood.
	There has been a lot of research and testing, particularly in the United States. I do not claim to be a medical scientist, but I have tried to understand as best I can some of the recent literature. In February, a major study was published in "Journal of the National Cancer Institute" in the United States—the ASCUS/LSIL triage study, a summary of a great deal of testing in pilot studies in the United States, which advanced not only the science, but the understanding of how testing can operate and be made to work.
	Knowledge is spreading widely in Europe. The European Journal for Infectious and Immunological Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology published a study earlier this year by a group of German scientists, which again advanced knowledge and understanding of the subject. What can now be said categorically is that the cause of the disease is understood: it comes from the virus. That virus can be detected with 100 per cent. certainty, as opposed to the 80 per cent. or less certainty that comes from the smear test.
	I understand that merely achieving a scientific breakthrough is not a sufficient condition for adoption by the NHS. The NHS rightly has to go through a process of evaluation. The economics are always important. I have on occasions pressed for early introduction, for example, of drugs to deal with Alzheimer's, and the answer comes back from Ministers, "We understand that it will clearly help a lot of people, but it is very costly and we have to look at the costs and benefits."
	What is unique about the HPV screening controversy is that it is an example of a new advance that would save, as opposed to cost, large amounts of money. That is not merely my assertion. A lot of technical literature supports that view, with which I am sure the Minister's Department is familiar. Articles were published as early as 1997 by Professor Cusick and his collaborator Sasieni. The British Journal of Cancer published an article in the same year by a Dutch researcher, Van Ballgooijan. Jeremy Holmes of the Economists Advisory Group was also involved. They have all done the sums and come to some careful conclusions about the benefits that the NHS would derive from adopting the HPV testing system. It would be possible to increase the length of time that women need to spend before the screening from three to five years, and there would be fewer inadequate tests: the figure could be cut from 8 per cent. to 1 per cent. That means fewer women being recalled and less need for testing, quite apart from the anxiety that that causes the women concerned.
	There would be a considerable reduction in the NHS time and resources involved. Moreover—and perhaps most important—fewer women would attract the disease, and there would be less need for extensive and indeed painful therapies. The research suggests that the NHS would probably save £30 million a year by adopting HPV testing—a quarter of the whole cost of the screening programme. There are probably very few examples in modern medicine where the benefit-cost ratio of a new programme is so clear cut.
	That brings us to why testing is not happening. A controversy has run over the years as to why things have not moved more quickly under the Government of the day—primarily this Government, because people became aware of the problem after 1997. One of my colleagues in the House of Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, secured a debate on the issue in the early part of 1999 and raised many of the questions that I raise now, which makes me even more impatient to understand why there has been a hiatus.
	I understand that the Government have brought in a series of pilot tests in three regions and that they are due to be finished at the end of 2002. Presumably, there will then be a period of evaluation until early 2003, and a decision will be made roughly two years from now. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that would be the timing and what the roll-out time would be to make the programme universal, were it established that it was sound.
	First, I have to ask why this is necessary. As someone with scientific training, I understand the importance of pilot studies, but many pilot studies have been carried out in the United States involving not only an enormous amount of laboratory work, but extensive field testing. Beyond that, health practitioners in the United States have already been given guidance on how to administer the test, so they are several years ahead of us. I appreciate that that applies not only to the UK, but to the whole of western Europe.
	I am perplexed about why we cannot adopt American best practice. I appreciate that we have a universal programme and that, in that sense, ours is a better system, but given that the technology and the economics have been proved, I cannot understand why we cannot move on more quickly.
	My second question relates to the British pilot testing system. I understand that it deals only with borderline cases. As the HPV test has potential for universal screening to be run alongside the smear test, why is it not being undertaken on all women in a particular region of the country? Why is it being carried out in this rather narrow, circumscribed way?
	My third question also relates to the British pilot. I understand that the Scottish Executive have recently curtailed funding for various pilot studies in Scotland. I appreciate that it is not the Minister's responsibility; indeed the Scottish Executive are the joint responsibility of our two parties, so this is not a party political point. However, for whatever reason, the Scottish Executive have chosen to curtail research. That merely adds to the feeling of many campaigners and specialists in this field that the United Kingdom is not as committed as it could be to bringing this new testing system on stream.
	In conclusion, I should like to quote an extract from what my colleague in the House of Lords said about this two and a half years ago. Almost exactly the same points were being made then, so it is not a novel problem. He said:
	"The FDA in the United States has already undertaken extensive trials. The test is in use for the US for borderline cases. There are trials in a number of other EU countries. Here in the UK the ICRF has a trial involving 12,000 women due to be completed next year."
	That was in 2000.
	"It is already in use in Marie Stopes clinics, yet the official trials seem to be destined to take for ever . . . Yet this is a diagnostic tool to supplement an existing test, not a major new treatment. Why cannot we rely on the ICRF trials when they are complete? That does not seem to be displaying the same sense of urgency as the Dutch Government, for instance, who are pressing for interim results."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 1999; Vol.597, c.1781-2.]
	I could repeat the same message today.
	At first sight, there seems to be little reason for holding back. There are good humane reasons in terms of the health of women as well as economic reasons for progressing fast. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to go through this rather protracted process? When is the earliest end point to the process of testing that she can envisage? Can she give us an assurance that if—as seems to be the case—knowledge and understanding are advancing rapidly, this process of testing can be short-circuited in order to save hundreds of unnecessary deaths?

Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for raising this important subject. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in offering him our condolences. He clearly has a personal commitment to this subject and an understanding of the issues. He outlined the key point, which is to ensure that our programmes are effective and that we do what is necessary to safeguard women from cervical cancer to the best of our ability.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, we already have significance evidence that the NHS cervical screening programme is successful. Research has shown that it saves about 1,300 lives per year. It was directly responsible for a 43 per cent. drop in the incidence of cervical cancer between 1988 and 1997, and more than 8,250 lives were saved over the same period. In 2000–01, 83 per cent. of eligible women in England had had a test in the previous five years, 3.6 million women were screened and laboratories reported 4.1 million tests. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of cervical screening staff across the country.
	Organised screening, as the hon. Gentleman said, is available nationwide only in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. In 1988, the UK was the first country in the now European Union, and one of the first in the world, to launch a nationwide cervical cancer screening programme based on computerised call and recall. The UK programme is among the best in terms of numbers. The Dutch programme is similarly nationwide and organised, but no other country screens as many women per year as the UK, where coverage is highest.
	Cervical screening is the most reliable method of detecting changes to the cervix that, if left untreated, may go on to develop into cervical cancer. However, like all screening techniques, it is not perfect. There is a measure of interpretation, as the hon. Gentleman said, based on the expert judgment of the individual cytoscreeners involved in assessing abnormalities in screening samples. In a proportion of cases, the abnormalities will be so slight that different cytoscreeners could reach different decisions as to the correct result. In addition, the test itself is not 100 per cent. sensitive.
	Women invited for cervical screening need to understand the potential benefits and limitations, in order to be able to make an informed choice about whether they wish to proceed. Information provided to women must be honest, comprehensive and understandable. That is why the NHS cancer plan said that all women will receive a national information leaflet on cervical screening when they are invited to attend. The new leaflets will be launched at the end of this month, and are based on research, including discussions with a diverse range of women. The development of the national leaflets was overseen by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening and the national cancer director.
	The new screening leaflets are an important step under the new principle of openness in the NHS to which we are all committed. For the first time, women will be given all the facts about cervical screening and a real informed choice about whether they wish to be screened.
	The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the opportunities provided by developments in technology, and I want to follow him in that. New developments may help to address some of the problems surrounding cervical screening. That is why the Government are currently piloting both liquid-based cytology and human papilloma virus testing in the cervical screening programme.
	The two pilots are related. Liquid-based cytology techniques offer a new way to prepare screening test samples for examination in the laboratory. By offering a new way of storing and preparing cervical samples, liquid-based cytology may improve the quality of the cervical screening test. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has suggested that introducing liquid-based cytology could increase the sensitivity of slides, reduce the number of unsatisfactory tests and improve the speed with which slides can be read. The LBC arm of the pilot is designed to collect information on the effect, costs and practical implications of introducing LBC technology into the cervical screening programme.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, human papilloma viruses are a group of 80 viruses known to be implicated in 99 per cent. of cervical cancers. In most women, the virus is cleared naturally by the immune system, but in some it persists and goes on to cause cervical abnormalities that, if left untreated, may develop into cervical cancer.
	The hon. Gentleman's questions about the speed and effectiveness of HPV screening partly come down to whether we are talking about that screening as a primary screening method or as a method of sorting, following a smear test that suggests a mild or borderline case. I wish to address both of those issues.
	As yet, there is no evidence to support the use of HPV testing as a primary screening tool. The health technology assessment review of research into HPV testing, published in September 1999, concluded that the evidence might support testing for HPV only in certain situations, such as the management of mild and borderline screening tests. The HPV arm of the pilot is therefore using HPV testing as triage—sorting—for women with mild or borderline test results to provide stronger evidence on which women should return for further screening and how soon.
	We are not ignoring the issue of primary screening. St Mary's hospital in Manchester is co-ordinating a study to investigate HPV as a primary screening method. The study began in January 2001 and will take six years, including the following up of the data, and will involve 28,000 samples. The Department of Health is funding equipment for the study, at a cost of £90,000.

Patsy Calton: I was interested to hear the Minister's comments about the Manchester trial, because I have also been in contact with the people there. Is she aware that a significant part of the trial includes the examination of the stigma associated with cervical cancer, of the resultant depression when women believe that they have contracted cervical cancer, and of the expensive prescribing of anti-depressants that results? Is she also aware that significant bodies of medical research suggest that HPV testing can be used as a predictive measure to identify those women at particular risk of developing cervical cancer and enable follow-up work to be done?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady makes important points about the range of the research, the complexity and implications of screening programmes—for diagnosis and the effects on the women involved—and the procedures before and after diagnosis that we need to ensure are in place.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham raised the issue of the timing of the pilots. It is beneficial to pilot the HPV testing and the liquid-based cytology together, which is one of the reasons for the timing; HPV testing can be carried out on the original LBC slide, whereas at present a woman would need to be called in for a separate HPV test.
	The pilot of HPV testing as triage and of liquid-based cytology began in April 2001 at three sites in Newcastle, Norfolk and Norwich and north Bristol after the selected sites had addressed the issues of training and installation of equipment. Results of the liquid-based cytology arm of the pilot should be available early next year. The HPV arm of the pilot will end in September 2002. Analysis of the data on HPV will begin in October 2002, and the report on the evaluation of the HPV arm of the pilot will be submitted in early 2003. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the NHS cancer plan set out the commitment that, if the pilots prove successful, the Government will fund implementation of the programme across the NHS.
	In addition to piloting the new technologies, strict quality assurance operates across the cervical screening programme, at a cost of £3.5 million a year. Quality assurance is an important part of the cervical screening programme. It acts as a safety lever by maintaining standards and continuing improvement in the performance of all aspects of cervical screening in order to ensure that women have access to a high-quality service wherever they live.
	The performance of laboratories is kept under close review. They are subject to rigorous external quality assurance procedures. The procedures aim to spot potential problems before they become serious and quickly to identify solutions. This, together with the ever-increasing expertise of screening staff, means that the observed benefit of cervical screening is set to continue to increase.
	The improvements in cervical screening would not be achievable without investment in cancer staff. Cervical screening staff are an important group and we will invest to support their continuing development. Arrangements for new ways of working are under development. They will explore the potential for an advanced practitioner grade, which will lead to a more flexible work force. New pay arrangements to support this measure have now been agreed with staff representatives.
	In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for raising this important subject. The NHS cervical screening programme is successful, enabling us to identify and support women. It has enabled us to diagnose early and to save women's lives. However, we need to ensure that as we develop the technology, we introduce it into the screening system effectively and appropriately. We are committed to ensuring that we maintain a high quality of monitoring and staff development.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the issue is not only of personal importance to him, but of significant importance to the NHS, and one that we are committed to continue to develop.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock. Corrections Official Report, 23 October 2001: In col. 130, "Mr. Foster" should read "Mr. Don Foster (Bath)" In col. 136, delete "The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)" and insert "The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson)"